Commons Sitting of 11 June 1858

LUNATIC ASYLUMS COMMISSION (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there is any prospect of the labours of the Lunatic Asylums Commission (Ireland) being brought to a close, so that the Report may be laid upon the table previous to the 1st day of July?
LORD NAASsaid, that the Commission was now sitting, and, from the information he had obtained, he had every reason to believe that its labours would come to an end in about a week, and the Report would be printed and in the hands of Members before the end of the first week in July.

ANNEXATION OF DHAR.—QUESTION.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control whether the Government has decided on confirming or disallowing the annexation of the Principality of Dhar; and in case the Government has decided on the above question, whether it will produce Copies of the Correspondence which has taken place on the subject.
LORD STANLEY: Sir, the despatch which will announce the intentions of the Government with regard to the affairs of Dhar is in course of preparation, and has not yet gone out. But I may say, generally, that it is the intention of the Government to disallow the policy of annexation
1920
as regards the territory of Dhar, and that the present occupation of that territory is provisional only, subject as to its duration to further explanation which we hope to receive. I may add, that in the present state of affairs I think it would be premature to produce the papers.

MR. CECIL MOORE'S APPOINTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he rose to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. Cecil Moore, who has been recently appointed Sessional Crown Prosecutor for the County of Tyrone, is the same Mr. Cecil Moore described in the Appendix to the Report on the Belfast Riots, page 289, as Cecil Moore, of Cottage Hill, Aughnaclony, Grand Secretary of the Tyrone Orange Lodge?
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could not answer the question whether Mr. Cecil Moore was the same person as the Cecil Moore whose name appeared with two hundred other names in the appendix of the Report to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. The small office to which Mr. Cecil Moore had been appointed became vacant while he (Mr. Whiteside) was attending to his Parliamentary duties, and that Gentleman was recommended to him by the two Members for the county, and by several other persons, as a most respectable and competent person, but that he refused to make the appointment until the Assistant Barrister had made his Report. In that Report it was stated that Mr. Cecil Moore had practised as an attorney in the Court of which he (the Assistant Barrister) was the sole Judge, and also in the Court of Quarter Sessions for twelve years, and that he considered him to be a person of most respectable character. He (Mr. Whiteside) had not instituted any inquiry into his politics or religion, but he would correspond with him on the subject of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, and take good care that his conduct in his office was such as befitted a person who held that situation.

  THE LADIES' GALLERY.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR EDWARDSsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works whether there is any objection to an increase of accommodation in the Ladies' Gallery?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that in consequence of the observations of the hon.

  1921
  Gentleman in Committee of Supply, he lost no time in inquiring into the subject, and he was happy to say there would be no objection to make the experiment of giving an increase of accommodation in the Ladies' Gallery. If the experiment answered, it would be carried further.

  STATE OF THE THAMES.—QUESTION.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Chief Commissioner of Works with regard to the state of the River Thames. It was a notorious fact that hon. Gentlemen sitting in the Committee Rooms and in the Library were utterly unable to remain there in consequence of the stench which arose from the river; and he wished to know if the noble Lord has taken any measures for mitigating the effluvium and discontinuing the nuisance.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was very sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that the River Thames was not in his jurisdiction, and therefore not under his control.

  CHATHAM BARRACKS.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL BUCKLEYsaid, he rose to ask whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to the defective supply of water and the crowded state of the Barracks at Chatham?
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he had received no official Report on the subject of the water. His attention had been called to the state of the barracks, and he would make inquiries about it.

  OFFICERS' SERVANTS.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL CODRINGTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the warrant of 1857 relating to Officers' Soldier-Servants is or is not cancelled; and, if not, whether it is still considered that the sum of 1s. a day in England, and 1s. 6d. a day abroad, is a sufficient sum to pay for a Civilian Servant.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, the document alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member was not a Warrant, but a War Office circular, and it was cancelled.
  On the Motion for the adjournment of the House to Monday,

LORD CANNING'S PROCLAMATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WILSONsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Control, whether any distinct information has been
  1922
  received that Lord Canning's Proclamation has been issued at Lucknow, and of the result which has been produced upon the Talookdars in their relation to the British Government. The reason for putting the question was, that it had appeared several times in the public prints, that information had been received at Calcutta as to the successful results of Mr. Montgomery's efforts for the pacification of Oude; and he was very much astonished two or three days ago, when the Attorney General for Ireland, having occasion to refer to the subject, took upon himself to say, that Mr. Montgomery had disobeyed and cancelled Lord Canning's Proclamation. Unless the Government were in possession of information to justify that statement, he thought it a most unwarrantable inference, from the slender facts of which we were cognisant, that because Mr. Montgomery had succeeded in pacifying Oude, therefore he had changed the policy of the Governor General. It appeared that those who disapproved the Proclamation and policy of the Governor General took the earliest opportunity of suggesting and supposing that any possible success which had attended the policy of Lord Canning was not attributable to his policy, but to the abrogation and reversal of it. If the Government were in possession of any information, he hoped the noble Lord would state that they had no objection to lay it before the House.
  LORD STANLEY: I am glad the hon. Gentleman has put the question, because it will give me an opportunity of correcting a slight inaccuracy in the reply which I gave yesterday to another question in reference to the same subject. I was asked yesterday by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) whether any official documents had been received by the last mail relative to the pacification of Oude. When I saw that notice on the paper, I caused inquiry to be made in the department with which I am connected, and I received a positive assurance that nothing official on the subject had been received. I have again made inquiry to-day, and I find that I was right so far that no despatches have been received on the subject from the Governor General. But after my reply was given, and when the House had proceeded to the transaction of other business, so that I had no longer an opportunity of offering any explanation, there was forwarded to me a paper containing a short postscript to a miscellaneous despatch from the Secre-

  1923
  tary to the Chief Commissioner of Oude to the Secretary to the Governor General in India. That miscellaneous despatch, with its postscript, was transmitted from Calcutta, not accompanied with any official explanation, and is not of a very recent date. The date is the 3rd of April. The date of the covering letter which transmits it from Calcutta is the 20th of April; therefore it hardly represents the latest accounts which have been received in this country. It does not go fully into detail, but such as it is, as I have been unintentionally the means of misleading the House, I shall do well to read it:—
  "Secretary to Chief Commissioner of Oude to Secretary to Government.
  "Lucknow, April 3.
  "The talookdars are holding aloof [I believe that means holding aloof from the rebel cause]; and the Chief Commissioner fervently hopes that there will not be any very serious opposition to the permanent establishment of our rule in Oude. Two lists are sent, one of the landholders who treated with us at Alumbagh, the other of those who have come in under terms of the Government Proclamation, combined with the Chief Commissioner's letter of assurance that those who come forward and do good service now, will have their claims to the lands of which we dispossessed them reinvestigated."
  This is the only official paper which I can discover on the subject. From it, it will undoubtedly appear that a Proclamation had been issued to the people of Oude, but that Proclamation had been considerably modified from the draught sent home. I may say that, from the tenor of various private letters from different persons, I hope we have reason to believe that the policy actually pursued in Oude has been a policy of conciliation and justice, and that its results, as far as we can ascertain them, have been satisfactory with regard to the landed proprietors generally. As I shall not have an opportunity of speaking again, I hope the House will allow me to answer at once two other questions of which notice had been given. The hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Sir Erskine Perry) wishes to ask whether letters from the Governor General of India have not been received, covering Reports of a public character from Mr. Montgomery and other officers in Oude, relating to the pacification of that country, and whether there is any objection to laying such Reports on the table. It is true that, in a private letter received from Lord Canning, there were inclosures relating to various public matters; unfortunately the letter in question is not in my hand at the present moment,
  1924
  and though I endeavoured to obtain it in order to refer to its contents before coming down to the House, I have not been able to do so. It is a private letter, and, of course, cannot be officially produced; and without seeing it again, I cannot say whether there is anything in it which would make it impossible to communicate it without detriment to the public service. I cannot, therefore, of course, promise to communicate it at present. But it would be more convenient, I think, to wait until this information reaches us officially, accompanied by an official covering despatch, which will probably contain further explanation, and I have reason to believe that such a despatch will arrive by the next mail. The noble Lord the Member for Durham (Lord A. Vane Tempest) wishes to know whether Her Majesty's Government have received any official communication from India on the subject of the taking of Kotah; and, if so, whether they have any objection to the production of such papers. In answer to that question, I have to say that General Roberts' official despatch has been received, and is being published, I believe, in this evening's Gazette.

  SANITARY STATE OF THE METROPOLITAN CHURCHES—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LAURIEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to Dr. Letheby's Report of the Sanitary State of the Churches, especially those in the Metropolis. The hon. Gentleman said, that, according to this Report, there were at present somewhere about 1,600 corpses lying under the pews occupied by the congregations in the metropolitan churches. Although these corpses were enclosed in leaden coffins, yet, when after the lapse of time the metal gave way, there oozed out a dark liquid, which was a deadly poison, and the effluvium which escaped was a fertile cause of disease. Surely, when they were erecting statues to the memory of Dr. Jenner, they might do something to save the lives of living worshippers. He called the attention of the Home Secretary to this matter in the hope that he would see that some steps were taken to remedy this state of things, either by removal of the corpses or in some other way. Such matters as this were of vital importance to the comfort and happiness of the people, and now that the old landmarks of politics were broken down, he had every confidence that the Gentlemen now in office would apply themselves earn-

  1925
  estly to every question of social improvement brought under their notice.
  MR. HARDYsaid, this subject was no doubt one of considerable importance, and it had not escaped the attention of former Governments or the Legislature. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was first in the work of carrying out the measure passed by the Government of 1852 for putting a stop to burials in churches, and closing over-filled burial grounds, and had been most effectively followed up by the right bon. Gentleman who succeeded him at the Home Office. He was sure that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) would pursue the same course with a view to abate the evil, the gravity of which every day that passed more and more brought to their attention. A clause was inserted in the Act of last Session which for the first time gave power to the Secretary of State upon information to interfere for the protection of the public, when the vaults of a church or other burial-places were in a state that was injurious to the public health. It was not passed, however, until the end of August, and as yet there had been no opportunity of putting it extensively into operation; but the very fact to which the hon. Member had called attention, that Dr. Letheby and Mr. Grainger had been examining the vaults in the City of London, would show that Government had not lost sight of the subject. In some of the metropolitan churches measures had been taken for covering up the bodies completely in sand and charcoal; and that, he believed, was, under the circumstances, the best means that could be adopted. So far as the removal of the bodies were concerned, he could not imagine a greater evil, or anything more calculated to excite terror in the public mind, than to let it go forth that there was any intention to remove 15,000 bodies from the London churches to places in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. The subject, he could assure the hon. Gentlemen, would not be lost sight of by his right hon. Friend. The authorities at the Home Office were, in fact, daily attending to it; for it was their earnest desire to get rid of the evil at once and for ever in the churches both in London and in the country. He believed that every church in the metropolis had already been closed against any more burials, and that there was now hardly a burial-place in the metropolitan districts, except in the suburbs, but was shut. He trusted the House would be satisfied that the measures
  1926
  which had been adopted by Parliament were being fairly carried out, and that the Government would do all in their power to enforce them.

THE NATIONAL DEFENCES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it was his intention to ask for an additional Vote for Seamen and Marines, in consequence of the vast preparations making in some parts of Europe by sea and land; and whether, when the additional Troops are sent to India, it was the intention of the Government to call out an equal number of Militia to replace them? It was not long since the right hon. Gentleman told his constituents at Slough that we had been within a few hours of a war with France; and seeing what was the present state of that country, he (Sir C. Napier) thought it not at all impossible that the same thing might occur again. After the very alarming article which appeared the other day in "the leading journal"—which had created a great sensation throughout the country, he thought it quite plain that Parliament and the country ought to be made aware what our defences really were. He had not the slightest idea that the Emperor of the French desired a war with us: but there was an immense army kept up in France, and, after the recent manifestation of the predominant position which it had assumed, nobody could tell whether it might not drive the Emperor to an attack on this country. We also knew that the French Government had lately been making immense exertions in all their ports. Cherbourg was now open, and it was connected by a railway with Paris, as were the other ports. Railroads had totally changed the whole face of European warfare. By means of them the French Government would be able to move troops with the greatest case from one end of the empire to the other, and they also gave every facility for bringing seamen from Toulon and the Mediterranean ports to the Channel harbour. France had, of course, a right to fit out as large a fleet as she thought proper; but this extraordinary activity must create a suspicion in the minds of the people of this country. Whom was France arming against? She was on good terms with America; and the increase in the navy could not be directed against Austria, which was not a maritime Power; Russia

  1927
  was out of her way and inaccessible to attack by sea: and there could be no other Power but this country with which France could wish to try her strength on the ocean. What the people wished to know was, whether they were safe from invasion or not in case a quarrel should occur with France—and it was impossible to be quite sure that one might not at some time or other occur; nor was the French Emperor a man to tell us beforehand what he was going to do. The First Lord of the Admiralty had recently stated in that House that France had, within two sail of the line, the same number of ships that we possessed. But that was not all. By her system of conscription and inscription France could call together at any time 60,000 or 70,000 seamen; and besides these, a large number of men who had served in the navy for several years, and had gone back to their homes, were liable to be called out also. What had we to oppose to these? We had plenty of ships. He believed that at the present moment we had twenty screw line-of-battle ships of one sort or other ready for sea; but within the last few months we had had a lamentable specimen of the time that it required to man line-of-battle ship in the cases of the Renown and the Marlborough. He was happy to say that, owing to the great exertions of the present Board of Admiralty, both these vessels were now ready. He would read to the House the actual state of our ships, because he believed that the information would prove satisfactory to them. We had at Portsmouth the Duke of Wellington, a very fine three-decked ship, and the Hannibal—both in commission, but only half manned, or not quite half manned—and the Cæsar, also ready for sea, but not manned. At Plymouth were the Exmouth, and Orion, just commissioned, but not manned—the Orion he was happy to say was manning very rapidly. At Sheerness there were the Royal George, the Cressy, and the Colossus—the Royal George and the Cressy were in commission, and were half manned, but the greater part of the men were not able seamen. At Cork was the Nile, half manned. On the coasts we have nine block ships, of which six were useless and three indifferent. Now, in the event of any disturbance occurring between this country and France, we should have to consider, not only the ships and seamen that France possessed, but her very large army, stated to amount to not less than
  1928
  500,000 men; and we knew with what case men could now be transported from one spot to another by means of steam. Supposing that we had an army of 400,000 or 500,000 men, and the same number of ships that we had at present, nothing in the world would be easier than for us to make an attack upon France if we thought fit to do so. A telegram would be despatched to the different ports, ordering our steam vessels to collect at Spithead, where they would all probably arrive within three or four hours of one another. So, if France equalled us in men-of-war—which she did, although she could not compete with us in the matter of steam vessels—she could order by telegraph any number of men to collect at Cherbourg, where they could be taken on board with the utmost despatch. He had himself seen the harbour of Cherbourg. The great works there were now completed, and the enormous docks and basins afforded means for embarking any number of men in a wonderfully short time. The troops could walk on board; cavalry, mounted on their horses, could ride on board; and artillery could be easily shipped, for thirty sail-of-the-line could he alongside of the wharfs alone. While these great works had been in preparation in France, we, on our side, had not been altogether idle, and he would try to explain to the House what were our means of defence irrespective of the ships to which he had referred. We had lately very properly established the Coastguard on a much more efficient footing than it had ever been before; and we had now, he believed, between 4,000 and 5,000 Coastguard-men, who were seamen, besides 1,000 or 2,000 more who were not seamen. We had also a pretty large force of Coast Volunteers. This force was one which he had himself recommended forty years ago, and he was satisfied that, as a naval militia, they would prove a most valuable auxiliary, provided that we had a navy to receive them. It was impossible to consider the country in her present state to be safe from an attack from France. He did not say that France had any intention to attack us, but this great country ought not to be left at the mercy of any nation which might find it its interest to pick a quarrel with us. Why had we 20,000 men at this moment at Aldershot? They were costing money, and he presumed that they were kept there in

  1929
  order to defend the country in case of attack; but the best means of defending the country was to meet the enemy before he could land upon our shores. It was no use mincing the matter, he must warn the House and the people that if they wished to keep the country in a state of safety they must be prepared to put their hands into their pockets; and the Government ought to tell the people that they would not be responsible for the safety of the country unless it were properly—not extravagantly—but properly defended. What we ought to do was at once to man ten sail-of-the-line completely; the men should be kept constantly ready for sea; and if once the Government and thé nation consented to that, we should have our ships ready at all times, and should be equal to any emergency, because we should be enabled, by distributing half the crews among other ships, and filling up the numbers with Marines, Coastguardsmen, and Naval Volunteers, and thus double the navy without the slightest difficulty; this would give us a very powerful force. No time should be lost in doing this; no one could deny that these measures were necessary. How did we know at this moment that France and Russia were not on very good terms; and what would be the feeling of this country if we heard that the Russian fleet had quitted the Baltic and was coming up the Channel? The confusion that it would create would be tremendous, and what would become of the funds God only knew. [A laugh.] He saw some hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh; but he must be permitted to tell them that it was no laughing business. Perhaps those hon. Gentlemen supposed that if the emergency did arise, it would be quite enough to get men and embark them on board ships; but that would not do—what were required were trained and efficient men. if two ships of equal capacity and power, and having the same number of men on board—one being a disciplined and the other an undisciplined crew—were to be opposed to each other in action, the ship with the disciplined crew would beat the other in half an hour. Suppose, for instance, the Royal Albert just returned from service, and the Marlborough just commissioned to be put in competition, why it would be impossible for the Marlborough to contend with any chance of success against her more practised opponent; and the same result would take place if she were placed against a disciplined
  1930
  French ship. He was not going to compare Frenchmen with Englishmen. He hoped in God they never would be equal to us, but it was never safe to despise an enemy; and though in the last French war the French vessels were officered in a very inferior way, on account of the emigration that had taken place, still they always made a gallant resistance, and lost a great number of men before they struck their colours. There was now a rumour than we were not on very comfortable terms with America; and if they were to hear that some dashing American officer, in order to gain a name—and he would very easily gain it in that way—had carried one of our vessels into New York, he would like to know in what position we should be? He remembered some time ago, when the Indus was upon the American station, it was discovered, when the men were at exercise, that all but sixteen of the ship's gun-carriages were rotten. He did not say that would happen again, but they ought always to be in a state of preparation. It was true that the First Lord of the Admiralty, after three weeks' consideration, had given them a Commission upon manning the navy; but they had not yet got the names of the Commissioners. Why they ought to have had the Report by this time; but the Admiralty was a slow body, there was no moving it. He understood that there were 10,000 troops at this moment under orders for India; that would just leave us so much weaker at home, and therefore they ought to be the more active in manning the navy. He understood that the number of men voted by the House was now complete, or nearly so; and if that were so, he wished to know how the First Lord of the Admiralty was to man ten additional sail of the line without a supplementary Vote. It was true there was a number of ships coming home, but ships did not all come home at the time they were expected, and when they did the men must have leave, so that it would be impossible to get them together again in sufficient numbers to man ten sail of the line (and no fewer would do) till the summer was at an end. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer might ask him what were the preparations in Europe to which his question referred. Now, he did not say that those preparations had been begun within the last few days—they had been going on for years; but those preparations were now on the

  1931
  point of completion. The hon. and gallant Admiral concluded by putting the Question of which he had given notice.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I was somewhat alarmed by the question which the hon. and gallant Admiral placed upon the paper to-day, because I supposed that he was in possession of some recent information which authorized him to make such a startling inquiry; but I am in some degree relieved by his informing the House that, in fact, he has no further information than that which has been the basis of the three speeches which he has made this Session upon the same subject. I can assure the gallant Admiral that Her Majesty's Ministers are truly and deeply sensible of the great responsibility which devolves upon them both to defend our common country and to vindicate, if necessary, the honour of our flag; but I am sure the House will feel that it is extremely inconvenient to the public interests to ask in this House whether our means of defence are equal to the means which those who are our allies, or any other Powers, may by any possible combination of circumstances have at their disposal for our annoyance. The hon. and gallant Admiral assumes, in the absence of all reasonable ground, that it is the interest and the desire of all the Powers of Europe, especially of those with whom we are at this moment in cordial alliance, not only to go to war with this country, but to go to war with this country suddenly, without the slightest regard to the laws and customs of civilized nations, and without any apparent cause, for the invasion of our territory and the devastation of our shores. The hon. and gallant Admiral has alluded to some observations which I made upon the probability of war, under certain circumstances, with France; but, without reviving any controversy upon those expressions, I may remind the House that that was an opinion given upon the assumption that there were sufficient, or at least important, causes at work, and which had been long at work, that might have produced so lamentable and disastrous a result. At the present moment, however, so far as France is concerned, we are not only in frequent but constant communication, and if it were the wish or supposed interest of France to pick a quarrel with England, opportunities might easily be obtained, when we are combining together to regulate the affairs of Europe under difficult circumstances, by which such an unfortu-
  1932
  nate state of affairs might be brought about. I am bound to say, in answer to this question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that he really has made no statement to the House by which he can substantiate his assertion that vast warlike preparations are being made by France at this moment by sea and land; he has laid no foundation to induce the House to believe that there is a state of affairs existing at this moment with respect to our relations with the different Powers, and particularly with that Power to which he more particularly pointed, under this particular head of armament different from that which he admits existed a considerable time since. No information has reached Her Majesty's Government that there are being made at this moment those extraordinary preparations by sea and land of which he has spoken. I need not reassure the House that at the present moment the relations between the two countries are of a cordial and confidential nature, and that at this moment we are acting with the principal Powers of Europe, and especially with France, in the management and regulation of most delicate and important interests, under circumstances which certainly would seem to indicate that the object—and such I hope will be the result—of all our labours is the maintenance of the peace of Europe, and not its outrageous disturbance, as the hon. and gallant Admiral seems to anticipate. But, though the gallant Admiral has limited his question to inquiries as to some parts of Europe, in his speech he has travelled across the Atlantic and reminded us that troubles are preparing for us in America. Unquestionably the House is now familiar with the circumstances. It is certainly possible that, from the excited state of feeling that prevails in the United States upon a particular subject, embarrassing and even mischievous results might occur in the interval that would elapse before communications from this country had reached the Government of America. But these are accidents which, however deplorable, no policy can possibly guard against; and, remembering the natural sympathy that exists between the citizens of the United States and the subjects of Her Majesty, and that between the existing Government of the United States and Her Majesty's Government upon all the great principles of policy which should regulate their relations there is a complete accordance, I will not anticipate that those embarrassing and mis-

  1933
  chievous accidents will occur. I will hope that those unfortunate accidents not taking place, there will be that which I am convinced will be the result, a complete understanding between the two Governments upon those circumstances which have certainly for a moment placed our relations in considerable danger. But, speaking generally upon the subject, what I venture to impress upon the House is, that it is not the policy or the interest of England always to give credit to foreign Governments for the worst intentions. I must express my opinion that a policy vigilant I grant it should be, and vigilant I, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, pledged myself to the gallant Admiral it shall be—and firm, but at the same time conciliatory, just, adapted to settle all those questions of controversy that may arise between the different nations and Governments, is more likely to adjust happily those differences than a policy of suspicion, and a readiness to show to foreign nations that you do not give them credit for those feelings upon which the progress of humanity and civilization depends. Now, we have had within the last very few hours a very significant proof, I think, of the justice of my observations. Within these few hours we have received a despatch which shows that a state of affairs in one part of the world which caused us, I hesitate to say, great disquietude, and which I even admit did seem to endanger the peaceful relations of European States, has been happily terminated, We have within these few hours received a despatch from Naples, informing us that his Majesty the King of Naples has granted and is prepared immediately to pay adequate, and I may say ample compensation to the English engineers; and, more than that, that the King of Naples has placed the Sardinian ship Cagliari and the whole of its crew at the disposal of the Queen of England. Mr. Lyons adds that on the next day the Neapolitan officers are to call upon him to receive his instructions as to the delivery of the ship Cagliari to him, and that he awaits the instructions of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In those instructions, which before the House met were despatched to Naples, Mr. Lyons has been instructed to deliver the Cagliari and its crew to the command of its late captain, under the general superintendence of Mr. Barber, the Consul, who throughout this affair has conducted himself with so much spirit and ability. The Cagliari, under
  1934
  the command of the same Sardinian captain, manned with the same Sardinian crew, and under the general authority of Mr. Barber, will sail to Genoa, and there Mr. Barber will deliver the Cagliari and its crew to the authorities of the King of Sardinia. Now, but a very short time ago these were circumstances that caused, and justly caused, the greatest anxiety in the public mind; and if we had pursued another course, which at the moment might have obtained considerable approbation, we might have brought about results of a very different character and have thrown Europe into confusion. Acting, however, with firmness, but at the same time with conciliation and in a spirit of justice, we have obtained this most satisfactory conclusion of this troublesome affair, and a new guarantee for the maintenance of the peace of Europe. Sir, if there were those evil dispositions which are attributed with so much facility to foreign States, do not you think that they would have seized this opportunity of throwing the greatest difficulties in the way of the peaceful solution of this question? But, on the contrary, we have had, throughout, the sympathies of this very Power to whom these evil dispositions are so freely imputed—we have had the sympathies of France in bringing to this most satisfactory termination these difficult, and at one time most distressing circumstances. Well, animated by seeing the result of a policy such as I have described, I cannot concur in the views which the gallant Admiral has attempted to enforce upon this House. This I will say,—that, whatever may be the state of our alliances, the state of the defences of this country ought to be complete. Considering our insular position, and the great wealth of this country, we ought, totally independent of all diplomatic circumstances—totally irrespective of what may be the results of a skilful or maladroit policy—we ought, abstractedly speaking, if I may use the expression, to lay down as a first condition that England should be adequately and completely defended. But what is adequate for the complete defence of the country must be left to those who have the difficulty and responsibility of the direction of affairs. If we are wanting—if events prove that we are wanting—in thoughtful vigilance or preparation upon this most important subject, the consequence to us must be of the most awkward description. But I would ask the House to give us credit for attempting, and I hope

  1935
  not unsuccessfully, to do our duty in this important respect; and let the House believe that the state of our alliances with the great Powers of Europe, although not free from difficulty and anxiety, for that they never can be, is a state very encouraging to the cause of peace. Were they, however, of a very different character, the state of this country is such that we may confidently hope, under any circumstances, to be able to defend our shores and vindicate our honour.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had somewhat misapprehended the object of the question of the hon. and gallant Admiral. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that he was not aware of any extensive preparations being made abroad. [Mr. DISRAELI: I said, "extraordinary," not "extensive."] Very well, extraordinary preparations, and he also added that the relations between this country and foreign Powers were of the most cordial description. Now, they had been informed a short time ago by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty that during a very considerable portion of the tenure of office of the late Government the coasts of the country were totally without defence. That statement, made a very short time back, had received no contradiction from the late First Lord of the Admiralty, and therefore he was justified in assuming that such was the case when the present Government took office. He was not going to raise the question as to what were "extensive" or "extraordinary" preparations in neighbouring countries, but this he would say, that these preparations had been carried on for some time until this country had become weak in relation to other countries. What the hon. and gallant Admiral wished to know—and he concurred with him in feeling anxiety for the information which he sought—was, whether in case of any unforeseen emergency we should be able to defend the coasts of this country. He did not impugn the zeal or ability of the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues; but at the same time he thought that House and the country had a right to know upon what they depended for the defence of the country. He did not anticipate a French invasion, but it was a disgraceful position for a country which called herself the mistress of the seas to be actually in doubt whether or no she was able to defend her own shores. The gallant Admiral had not an-
  1936
  ticipated an invasion, for he relied upon the good faith—and he quite concurred in that opinion—of the Emperor of the French, which, perhaps, joined to his moderation, had prevented a collision at a time when circumstances into which he should not enter had created strong feelings of irritation in the two countries. It might, however, happen that circumstances might arise when that distinguished man would not have events within his own control; and it was a most fair and proper question, and one to which the country had a right to expect an answer, to ask the Government what were the actual defences of the country, and whether we were in a position, under any circumstances, to defend our shores?
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of discussing the question before the House, but merely to say that he, for one, had been very much pleased with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who showed that the Government was ready to defend the country against any invasion, while at the same time they were not going to waste the funds of the country in any unnecessary expenditure. There was no possibility of an invasion taking place—it was a more dream;—but even supposing such a thing savoured of possibility, it was admitted on all hands that this country had abundance of ships, and the only difficulty had been in manning them. Now, although it might be difficult at the present moment to obtain sailors to go upon foreign stations, yet if such a very improbable thing as an invasion were threatened, there would be no difficulty in obtaining seamen for the defence of our own shores. There were always ships of the merchant navy at home to supply seamen sufficient to man all the ships of war. But he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would continue to follow out that conciliatory policy he had indicated to the House, and that instead of persisting in the absurd and pernicious policy of building large men-of-war because they were afraid of France, and thus compelling France to build them because she was afraid of England, he would say to France, "We have, for instance, sixty ships of the line, and you have forty ships of the line; now let us keep relative proportions afloat, and not build any more." He hoped the present Government would cause no more expenditure than was absolutely sufficient to maintain the defences of the country.

  1937
  They were going on spending large sums of money while, he believed, some understanding between this country and France might be come to.
  MR. BRIGHT: The hon. Gentleman who introduced this matter has put a question to the Government, and the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) has put a question to everybody in this House. Now, I shall just put one question to them, and I should be glad some evening to receive a distinct answer to it. I want to know the precise amount of expenditure, or of force by land and sea, which is required in order to enable us to say that this country is completely defended. It appears to me that gentlemen who, from their profession, should be the last to take alarm, are continually driving these terrors into the ears of peaceable non-military persons like myself. Only a few years ago a sound of alarm of a French invasion had been raised, and others have succeeded it like the claps of a thunderstorm in summer. Does the hon. Member opposite recollect that, not including the expense of wars, a much larger sum has been voted during the present year for the national defences than, I believe, ever has been spent before in time of peace? We spend twice as much now as we did twenty years ago, although, as far as any application of that expenditure goes, we have not a single foot of territory more to defend than we had then. I should like to know to what all this tends, and to what length we are to go; because, if ever the unhappy day should arrive in my lifetime, when, instead of spending £22,000,000 on defensive armaments, we shall be spending £44,000,000, I undertake to prove, by the same arguments as have been used by the two Gentlemen who have just addressed the House, that this country is in a state of almost absolute want of defence. I would undertake, with the map of England and Ireland in my hand, to indicate at least 100 points on which an enemy might land; I could also show that France was inhabited by a large population accustomed to war; I could talk about their avenging Waterloo, and all the other stock stories which are regularly trotted out on occasions of this nature, and I could establish then, as clearly as can be established now, that we were running the greatest possible risk, and that the nation was slumbering while it was on the edge of a most fearful precipice. I know a certain old lady of
  1938
  eighty years of age, whom some people have been trying to frighten within the last few days. A most plausible circular, written by some professor—of what he is a professor I can't say—was put by some simpleton before the somewhat dimmed eyes of this old lady; but she said, "I am not at all alarmed, for I have lived in the world eighty years, and as long as I can recollect there has always been a story afloat that there was going to be a French invasion." I dare say hon. Gentlemen have read Horace Walpole's Letters, in one of which—I forget exactly its date, for my memory does not serve me as to dates—an anecdote is told of there having once been a great alarm about an invasion; and he says there was found to be nothing in it—that it was used, as apothecaries say of something which they employ when they give very nauseous doses, as a "vehicle," the object being "to make us swallow the Hessians." The case is just the same now. There is an uneasiness in the country relative to taxation. I had a letter this morning—which I am very sorry I did not bring here with me—from a small master-cutler, probably a constituent of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. This man has a large number of children, whom he has a hard struggle to support; his trade is bad; and he says, "For Heaven's sake let us try if possible to have a different foreign policy—smaller armaments, fewer quarrels, lighter taxes, and a better chance for an industrious man to maintain himself and his family." I am asked by persons in this House—and some people out of doors who do not look very deeply into these matters put the same question to me,—why do you show something like favour to a Conservative Government, and why were you accessory to putting the Gentlemen now in opposition on their present benches? If I wanted an answer to this, it would be found in the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made to us to-night. These are not questions of aristocracy and democracy, they are not questions of Conservatism and Radicalism; they are questions of the obvious interests of our country, and of humanity at large. And I say a Government that would adopt a foreign policy based on moderation and justice is one that I should be disposed to see on the Treasury bench, in preference to any other Government which pretended to a great exhibition of English power in all parts of the world. The

  1939
  right hon. Gentleman has described what has been done with respect to Naples. All that difficulty arose from the unseemly conduct pursued towards that country a year and a half ago by the English Government. It is now at an end. The moderate and conciliatory policy of England has been met by an equal moderation on the part of the Neapolitan Government; and that squabble is now buried, we hope, for ever. We have another thing at present on hand—this American question, which I presume is owing to the sending out of gunboats and ships to the Cuban or West Indian station during the last year, and also, I suppose, to the instructions issued by the late Government, under which the English commanders in those waters, acting with what is called more vigour, have done that which the United States' nation would not stand any more than I am sure the English would do under the like circumstances. Then we have another matter in the China question, to which I would ask the attention particularly of the hon. Member who introduced this subject. If you are to have seventy or, as I think the right hon. Gentleman said, sixty ships of war in the Eastern seas, carrying on a quarrel which you don't understand, and engaged in a complication which you might have avoided,—if you are to have all this great armament stationed at a distance of 10,000 or 15,000 miles from you,—I ask what amount of revenue or of taxation which can possibly be raised will ever give you what you suppose you require—namely, large fleets to defend your coasts at home? Now, the course which the Government have taken in this matter is a truly Conservative course. There is no true Conservatism which is not based on a true morality. And whether at home or abroad, I believe it is possible for a Government, without bravado and without boasting, to confer solid benefit on the country, and whatever may have been its past profession of politics, to gain a substantial support from the people. I did not intend to make more than one observation when I rose; but I have heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with extreme pleasure. I believe it will give equal satisfaction throughout the country. I only hope the House and the nation will sustain the present Government in every effort they may make to restore our foreign relations to a state of tranquillity and safety, so that we may be able to turn our attention again
  1940
  to that from which we have been diverted for the last five years—namely, the process of reducing our expenditure, in order, if possible, to render England a country which all Englishmen shall prefer, rather than one from which they have incessant inducements to emigrate to every other part of the globe.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: Sir, I so entirely agree in what has been said as to the inconvenience of raising general discussions on foreign policy upon the formal Motion for adjournment till Monday, that I shall confine my attention to the conduct of the late Government, in the department with which I was connected, which has been so much impugned by the hon. Members for Norfolk and Birmingham. The former hon. Gentleman said that we left the country in a most defenceless state, and that it was necessary for our successors to make strenuous exertions in order to replace the armaments of the country on something like a proper footing. I appeal to the most unexceptionable testimony as to the utter erroneousness of this representation. The noble Earl at the head of the present Government himself admitted in another place that he had been both surprised and gratified, at the period of his accession to office, to learn that the impression which had previously prevailed in regard to the national defences was entirely unfounded, and that he had found the country both by land and sea in a complete state of defence. Well, what has been the conduct of the present Government since then? They very properly took time to consider the Estimates which we had prepared, but which had not been actually voted when they came into power, and the First Lord of the Admiralty took Votes on account several weeks before he definitively brought forward the Navy Estimates. And did the course which, after due reflection, the right hon. Gentleman pursued indicate any belief on his part that the country was inefficiently defended? Why, he did not deem it necessary to recommend the addition of a single man to the number proposed by his predecessors; and as to the Votes for the dockyards and the building of ships, he actually reduced the Estimates which we had prepared. I said at the time that I thought the reduction injudicious, and I still retain that opinion. Yet the hon. Member for Norfolk talks of the Herculean labour which we imposed on our successors.
  MR. BENTINCKexplained that he had spoken of the efforts that were necessary

  1941
  to place the defences of the country in a position to meet an emergency when the late Government left office.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: It is clear that the present Government must have believed the national defences to be in a safe condition, for they have thought proper to reduce our Estimates. But I pass on to the assertion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that whatever complications might exist in America arose from the instructions sent out by the late Government to the officers of the West Indian station. Now, it is perfectly true that I sent out additional gunboats to be employed in checking the slave trade, which was raising its head again in those waters; but I can inform the hon. Gentleman of what he evidently cannot know—namely, that no new instructions whatever have been issued to our commanders in the West Indies, and that those officers are still acting on the instructions which were drawn up in the year 1844, with a studious desire to avoid giving just cause of offence, and which were signed, I believe, by Sir George Cockburn. What I have said to any officer on that station has been rather in the way of caution. This is a point on which some misapprehension has prevailed in the minds of hon. Members, and perhaps in this country and I am glad to have had this opportunity of stating that nothing whatever was done by the Government with which I was connected which could lead the officers in command of vessels engaged in checking the slave trade to do anything which they would not have done any time during the last fifteen years.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he did not rise to answer the very difficult question proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham as to the cost at which the expense of the defences of this country could be defrayed; but having regard to the existing state of Europe, and to the demand necessarily made upon the forces of this country, he did not think that they were at this moment greater than was absolutely needed. Having early in the Session taken an active part in calling the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the case of the British engineers in Naples, and having urged upon them further steps than they then seemed disposed to adopt, he should not act rightly towards them if, upon the announcement of the result of their negotiations, he did not tender to them his congratulations upon their success, and his great satisfaction at the favourable issue
  1942
  of their exertions. With respect to the question of our defences he was not an alarmist. He entertained no fears of an invasion from France, but at the same time, remembering how different the events of the last ten years had been from any which could have been anticipated, he thought that we could not rely with confidence upon any predictions as to what might occur in the future. He desired peace as ardently as the hon. Member for Birmingham himself; but he was convinced that the true mode of securing tranquillity was for our Government upon all occasions to use firm and dignified language, and that they could not do unless they felt that our defences were adequate to the magnitude of the interests which had to be protected, and to the importance of this country in the world. Having heard with great satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to the termination of the negotiations at Naples, and many of the difficulties in that matter having arisen from the suspension of our diplomatic relations with that country, he should be glad to hear that the whole affair was at end, and that those relations had been resumed.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid he wished to put a question to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty on the subject of Manning the Navy. It was now three weeks since the Government had signified their intention of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject, and although the names of the Commissioners had been circulated in the clubs, the Government appeared to have taken no steps to bring them together. The list of names which he had heard included those of Lord Hardwicke, Admiral Martin, Lord Chandos, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Lindsay, Capt. Shepherd, Mr. Green, the shipowner, and others. He wished to know when the right hon. Baronet intended to nominate the Committee? and he also desired to express a hope that the usual custom would be followed, and that the hon. and gallant Admiral (Sir Charles Napier) who moved the appointment of the Commission would be placed on it.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The hon. and gallant Admiral who commenced this discussion complained that, although three weeks have elapsed since he moved the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the manning of the navy, it has not yet been issued. The Commission is now ready, the list of members is complete,

  1943
  and if there is any further delay, it will only be such as is required in order to comply with the various forms which must be gone through before the Commission can be made public. With regard to the statement that the names have been currently talked of in the clubs, I can only say that such ought not to have been the case. I have never communicated the names of those who were likely to serve on this Commission, except in confidence, and only in cases in which such communication was unavoidable. How it was that the names became known, I cannot tell, but I have no hesitation in saying that they ought not to have been known. I have not authorized their publication, and I will repeat what I said when a similar statement was made by an hon. and gallant Officer behind me (Admiral Buncombe), that at the time he made that statement not one of the names had been officially settled. Considering the difficulty which every hon. Gentleman must know attends the formation of a Royal Commission, the anxiety the Government must feel to appoint the most competent persons, the frequency with which it happens that those who are applied to are unable to serve, and the fact that, in this case the Whitsuntide holidays immediately followed the adoption of the Resolution for the issuing of the Commission, I hope that the House will feel that the lapse of three weeks has not been an unreasonable delay. I will now say a few words in consequence of the extent to which the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite (Sir Charles Napier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) have in the course of this discussion referred to the state of the naval defences of this country. After what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in every word of which I most heartily concur, I shall say but a very few words. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, referred to what fell from me two or three months ago in moving the Navy Estimates. I then stated my opinion, which I am now fully prepared to repeat, that it was not becoming the dignity of this country, it was not consistent with its safety or security, that our coast should be left so destitute of naval defence as they had been during the winter months in consequence of the detention of so large an amount of our forces in China and India. I entertain these feelings now as strongly as I did then; but, in expressing them, I do not thereby intimate the slightest
  1944
  doubt of the loyalty and good faith of our ally the Emperor of the French, or intend to convey either to this House or to the public that I sympathize with these alarms, which, I must say, I have heard with great regret. If any such feelings prevail in the public mind, it is undoubtedly natural, and perhaps right, that they should find utterance in this House; but at the same time I feel, and I hope the House will feel, that we cannot too strongly deprecate either speeches in this House or articles in newspapers which tend to excite alarm in the public mind when there is no just ground for such a feeling. I think hon. Members will agree with me that the only result of such speeches and such articles will be to create two great dangers and evils—panic and alarm—in the public mind in this city, and too probably irritation in the mind of our allies the French, whom it is our desire and our policy to conciliate in every honourable way. Consistently with these feelings, and consistently with the opinion I have already expressed that it is not becoming the dignity of England that we should be without naval defences on our shores, I can state that the present Government have from their accession to office exerted themselves to the utmost to make those defences effective, not from any alarm, not from any doubt of the loyalty of our allies, but from a feeling that this country ought, under all circumstances, to be prepared for any emergency which may arise. I am happy to say that the hon. and gallant Admiral in the course of his speech underrated—unintentionally I am sure—the naval power of this country; and I am bound to state that at this time we could, at the shortest notice, assemble in the Channel a fleet which would, I believe, be able to cope with any that any other power of Europe could send out. I feel it my duty to make that statement, hoping that I shall not be understood to imply any alarm, but the reverse. I do not mean to imply that there exists any reason for assembling such a fleet at the present moment. The House has heard from my right hon, Friend how satisfactory is the present state of our foreign relations; having, however, been appealed to I desire to say that while, on the one hand, the Government feel it to be their imperative duty to take care that the naval defences of this country shall be satisfactory, and shall be worthy of its dignity and power, on the other we are no less desirous of

  1945
  adopting with regard to all foreign powers a policy so conciliatory as to make any resort to those defences quite unnecessary.

THE CASE OF CAPTAIN JUDKINS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the arrest of Captain Judkins, of the Royal Mail Steamer Persia, in New York, on the 16th of May last. He had no intention to raise any unfriendly feeling between this country and America; on the contrary, it afforded him the greatest pleasure to know that in the recent arbitrary proceedings taken against him Captain Judkins had been supported by the press of New York and by the public feeling of that city. He would have been content to leave the question to be disposed of in America if it had not been one of considerable importance to the shipping interests of this country; but when he stated that Captain Judkins, though liberated on bail, was obliged to return to America to undergo a troublesome and expensive trial, he thought the House would naturally feel inclined to ask of what crime he had been guilty. The facts of the case which had been communicated to him not only by Captain Judkins himself, and by Mr. Cunard, the agent for the line of steamers to which the Persia belonged, but by an American authority also, might be briefly stated. The Persia, when under quarantine at New York, was boarded by a health officer, who discovered a case of smallpox in the ship, and who ordered Captain Judkins to lie to for some hours and allow no one to leave the vessel. A custom-house officer who was on board in his official capacity, desired to go ashore; but Captain Judkins, in obedience to the order of the health officer, which he was bound to obey, refused to permit him, and the custom-house officer remained on board until the Persia was discharged from quarantine and went up to the city. No sooner had Captain Judkins landed than he was arrested on the ground of having detained an officer of the customs on board his ship. Mr. Cunard, who was in America at the time, remonstrated against those proceedings, and, finding his remonstrances unavailing, he addressed a letter on the subject to the Mayor of New York. The Mayor forwarded that communication to the officer of health, who confirmed the statement of Mr. Cunard as to the facts of the case, and added that Captain Judkins
  1946
  had acted in strict conformity with the health laws of the port, and could not have done otherwise without incurring very serious consequences. The Mayor sent to Mr. Cunard a copy of the communication he had received from the officer of health, and, on his own part, stated that, had Captain Judkins acted in a different manner he would have subjected himself to punishment by fine or imprisonment, or both, as would be evident from an extract which he enclosed from the health laws of the State. It appeared that the whole difficulty arose from the fact that the laws of the State of New York were entirely at variance with those of the United States; so that it was utterly impossible for a person to observe the one code without infringing the other. Captain Judkins, therefore, was placed in this unfortunate position, that in consequence of having observed the laws of the State of New York he had been subjected to arrest, and, though allowed to come home with his vessel on bail, he had now to return to New York to undergo a very expensive and troublesome process. He submitted that that was not a position in which a British subject should be placed. if there was a difference between the laws of the United States and those of New York do not let Captain Judkins be the victim. He ventured, therefore, to ask for the friendly interference of the Government—for he believed it required nothing but a remonstrance on their part, not only to have the unjustifiable proceedings against Captain Judkins entirely quashed, but—what was his principal object—to prevent the occurrence of any similar case in future.

  OUTRAGE AT BELGRADE—CONSUL FONBLANQUE.—QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs another question. The following telegraphic despatch, dated Belgrade, 8th of June, had been received:—
  "Mr. De Fonblanque, Her Majesty's Consul General at Belgrade, was attacked by a Turkish soldier on the evening of the 7th of June, and severely wounded with a sword bayonet and contused by stones thrown at him. The act is attributed to fanaticism, connected probably with the bad feeling created by the Montenegrin affair. The Pasha appears to make lightly of it, but the Servian population is much enraged."
  He desired to know whether the Government have received any information upon that subject?

  CASE OF THE CAGLIARI—QUESTION.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Under Secretary would inform the House, at the same time, how much has been conceded by way of compensation to the two British Engineers of the Cagliari, and whether the King of Naples, in granting indemnity, had acted upon his own Motion without the intercession of third parties.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: In reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall), I can only repeat what I said the other day, that we have no knowledge of the circumstances of the case which he has brought before the House. From the statements which he has made, however, it is obvious that Captain Judkins has been placed in a very unfair predicament. I can assure the House that his case will receive the anxious and immediate attention of the Government—every proper representation will be made in the right quarter; and I have such complete confidence in the administration of the law, and in the sense of justice in the United States, that I have not the smallest doubt Captain Judkins will receive complete satisfaction. In reply to the question of the noble Lord the Member for Norwich (Viscount Bury), I have to state that a telegram, similar to that which he has read to the House, was received at the Foreign Office. Beyond that despatch we have no information; but immediately upon its receipt we telegraphed to Mr. Colquhoun, our Consul at Bucharest, to go at once to Belgrade to inquire into the circumstances, authorizing him, at the same time, to take whatever steps he might deem necessary. Coming to the question of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ridley), I cannot say, because I possess no knowledge on the subject, what communications may have passed between other Powers and the Court of Naples. I can only state that the redress which has been afforded to the two engineers was given in answer to a categorical demand which my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office thought it his duty to make, and which was carried to Naples by a messenger, who had instructions to wait ten days for a reply, and to return at once if no satisfactory reply were given. A satisfactory reply has, however, been given, and I have to state that the sum which has been paid is £3,000.

  PACIFICATION OF OUDE.—QUESTION.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he had
  1948
  given notice "To ask whether letters from the Governor General of India have not been received, covering reports of a public character, from Mr. Montgomery and other officers in Oude, relating to the pacification of that country, and whether there is any objection to laying such Reports on the table?" He understood that the documents referred to formed part of a private communication and could not be produced. He hoped, however, that the noble Lord would reconsider his determination and agree to produce those papers at once, as they would be of great value to the public. He would take another opportutunity of putting a question to the noble Lord on the subject.

  PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. GLADSTONEinquired. when the Government intended to move the second reading of the Bill for guaranteeing a loan on behalf of Prince Edward Island? That Bill involved two important questions—the principle of guaranteeing loans for colonial purposes; and the peculiar form in which the arrangement in the present instance was proposed, a colonial Act having actually been passed for raising the loan in anticipation of a guarantee being given by the Imperial Parliament—and it was of the utmost consequence that the second reading should not be taken without a full discussion. He had moved for some information bearing on those colonial guarantees, which was not yet supplied to the House, but he hoped that it would be produced before the House was called on to assent to the second reading of the Bill.
  SIR BULWER LYTTONsaid, that having been so short a time in office, he had been unable yet to come to a decision upon the Bill; but if the right hon. Gentleman would repeat his question on Monday, he would then give an answer.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.—COMMITTEE.

  THIRD RESOLUTION.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  MR. CHAIRMANstated that the Question he had to put to the House was, that the blank in the following—the third—Resolution should be filled up with the word "more:"—
  "That in order to assist such Minister of the Crown in the discharge of his duties, it is expedient that a Council be appointed of not—than twelve nor more than eighteen Members."
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I moved the insertion of the word "more," with the view of providing that the Council should not consist of more than twelve; but I wish, at this period, to call the attention of the Committee to the nature of the Council which we are about to form: for although the Question only concerns the number of the Council, it may be convenient that we should have here some regard to the whole nature of the Government we are about to constitute. We have now been engaged some months upon this question. Three attempts have been made under various forms, and under different Governments, to induce the House either to give up the task of legislation for the present, or to make only a temporary provision, so that the subject may be considered next year. These attempts have all been negatived by large majorities of the House; and we are now, I may say, at the commencement of the task of constructing a Government for India. I stated, on a former occasion, that three different plans might be adopted. One was to constitute the Government of India, as nearly as possible, like the East India Company, only connecting the President of the Board of Control with the Court of Directors, and thus continuing what the Government propose to abolish. Another was, to give the whole power to a Secretary of State, with only an Assistant Under Secretary of State. Both these schemes have been virtually set aside by the decision of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), who proposed a Minister of the Crown without a Council, did not even divide the House, for he saw clearly that the opinion of the House was against him. Well, there only remains the question of having a Minister of the Crown with a Council, whether he shall be called a Secretary of State, or President of that Council. Now, various questions will arise as to the constitution of this Council. In the first, place, we ought to form a clear notion as to the purpose for which we propose this Council. It appears to me that it ought to be a Council consisting of persons of high character, and it would be an advantage if many of them, whether a half or a greater portion, should be persons who have had the benefit of experience in India. Now, would these persons who have had experience in India accept a seat in this Council? Many of them are persons who have held positions of great power, and who have had hundreds of
  1950
  thousands, and perhaps millions, of people looking to their decree as decisive of their welfare, and they would not accept any situation except it were accompanied by due honour, and such as it would not be in any degree derogatory to them to hold. I speak of such men as Mounstuart Elphinstone and Lord Metcalfe. Persons of that class would accept a position of honour which gave them some kind of influence over the welfare of India, but they would not be expected to become merely subordinates of a Minister of the Crown. I therefore think that in dealing with this Council regard should be had to the powers, salary, and tenure of the Members, so that they be such as men of high distinction might be willing to accept the office. With regard to the number of the Council, we do not require more than is necessary to transact the business. The Government, in their original Resolution, propose a number not less than twelve. That seems to imply that a number not exceeding twelve would be sufficient for the business; because they would hardly propose any number which, in their estimation, would be insufficient for the purpose. With regard to the division of the business, I think there might be four Committees, of three persons each, to deal with the great subjects of finance, the army and navy, and the internal government of India, the latter comprising the administration of justice and the foreign policy of the Government of India. Thus the whole business would be carefully and deliberately transacted. It also appears to me that, in order to enable men such as I have mentioned to transact this business, it would be necessary to attach a competent and able secretary to each of these Committees; and therefore not less than four secretaries would be required. I believe that the view taken at the India House is, that men who devote themselves to the labour of the government of India ought to have every assistance possible, and that the business should be brought before them in such a shape that they could decide on it with a full knowledge of all the transactions which had taken place. I myself had experience of the assistance given by the Secretary to the Secretary of State in an office which, though not greatly resembling the business of the proposed Council, had, nevertheless, some similarity to it—the Colonial Office—and I think the noble Lord now the President of the Board of Control must have seen enough to be aware that the

  1951
  very able men who preside in the different departments of the Colonial Office prepare business in such a manner that the Secretary of State is able, with respect to any subject which may come before him—whether Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island—to come to a decision upon the main points of the matter so clearly and plainly put before him. Now, Sir, I think the Council of India ought to have similar aid. I think the number of the Council ought not to exceed twelve, and that twelve would be sufficient for all practical purposes. I think, also, the Committee should bear in mind what fell from the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton on a former night, to the effect that in future years, when present difficulties have been overcome, and when many questions of urgent importance in India have been settled, the home Government will hardly have those matters of detail, of expenditure of trifling sums, or those very narrow questions which the Directors of the East India Company hitherto have had to deal with. I do not doubt the statement of the hon. and gallant Member, himself a Director of the East India Company (Colonel Sykes), that the business before the Court has been very great, perhaps at times almost overwhelming; but, at the same time, I do not think it absolutely necessary that in all future years an equal amount of business should be done in this country. Further, with respect to all the members of the Council, I think they ought to hold positions of dignity. I think, for instance, that it would be right that every one of them should be a member of the Privy Council; and that would constitute an inducement to persons who have had experience in India to accept the situation of Member of the Council. This, however, is a point for subsequent consideration on the Bill, rather than for present consideration upon the Resolutions. I am of opinion, also, that the Members of the Council should not be excluded from sitting in Parliament. I am aware that many persons imagine that a Member of the Council not immediately removable at the pleasure of the Crown might state opinions, if he sat in this House, adverse to the existing Secretary of State or President of the Council fur India; but for many years—ever since the settlement of 1784—East India Directors have sat in this House, and they have felt it their duty, though differing in the private direction of business, not to bring before the House questions on which that difference
  1952
  of opinion existed, It should be borne in mind that it is one of the greatest objects of ambition for a person having a competent fortune to obtain a seat in the House of Commons, and to be the representative perhaps of the town or county from which he originally came. As to the salaries to be paid to the Members of the Council, I own I think the salary of £1,000 a year each, proposed both by the late and present Governments, a scanty remuneration for the services to be performed. I have always found—no doubt it is an absurd feeling—that in this country there is a general disposition to estimate the importance of offices by the amount of salary attached to them, and that persons are frequently unwilling to accept appointments which, so far as the salaries are concerned, place them in an inferior position to those who are not their equals in rank and position. In my opinion, salaries of not less than £1,500 a year ought to be assigned to the Members of Council; and if that course be adopted, the expense would be the same as it would be if the proposal of the Government were acceded to—that eighteen Members of Council should be appointed at a salary of £1,000 a year each. There is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee. In 1793, what was styled the Secret Committee of the Court of Directors was constituted. That Committee consists of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the East India Company and the senior Member of the Court of Directors, and it is with them alone that the President of the Board of Control holds any communications upon questions of foreign policy and other matters of delicacy and difficulty affecting our Indian empire. That change was adopted at the suggestion of Mr. Dundas, who although he then made one of the ablest speeches that has ever been delivered on the affairs of India, does not appear to have laid any particular stress upon the change, of the importance of which, however, he must have been fully aware, because it enabled the Minister of the Crown—the President of the Board of Control—to direct the foreign relations of India without the consent, or even the knowledge, of the Court of Directors;—it was, therefore, a change which, with regard to the affairs of India, gave the Minister of the Crown and the English Cabinet complete supremacy; but the attention of Parliament was not called to the importance of the measure. It seems to me, however,

  1953
  that if the Indian Council were well chosen, and reliance were placed in it, that Council ought to be intrusted with a full knowledge of all the affairs of India. If it were supposed that any Power was preparing armaments which were likely to be directed against India, I think the despatches relating to such a subject should be laid before the Council, and that the Secretary of State ought to lend a willing ear to their opinions. The Secretary of State should be bound to act in conformity with the opinions of the Council. I do not mean to say that, with regard to this or any other part of his duties, because I think he ought to be the responsible person, but resposible after having received the fullest information on the part of the Council. For instance, if I find—and indeed I should be sure to find—among the members of the Council men who are thoroughly acquainted with the circumstances of Affghanistan, Burmah, and Persia, I think that, before the Secretary of State conies to any final decision affecting those countries, he ought to obtain all the information which could be afforded him by the Council. It is evident, therefore, that the Members of Council ought to have as full information on all matters corning within their cognizance, as is possessed by the Cabinet Council of Her Majesty with regard to the domestic affairs and foreign relations of this country. In my opinion, if you constitute a Council, it ought not to have less authority, or less dignity, or less power, than that which I have claimed for it. There are some other matters upon which I wish to say a few words, more especially as the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control touched upon the question of patronage. I believe there would be great public advantage that the Members of Council should be exempt from any suspicion with respect to the exercise of patronage, and that there should be no reason to suppose that considerations of private friendship or relationship led them to confer appointments without regard to the merits of the recipients. I think there would be great advantage in freeing them from such a suspicion. At the same time, I think it is desirable to avoid placing a great accumulation of patronage in the hands of the Secretary of State for India, and that it is desirable to find some other mode of exercising it. And the mode which I would recommend to the Committee is free and open competition. The noble Lord the President of the Board of
  1954
  Control stated the other night that, although this mode of selection might be suitable so far as civil appointments were concerned, he doubted whether it would be advisable with regard to cadets for the military service, who were not to be chosen solely on the ground of their literary and intellectual accomplishments. It does not follow, however, because we establish a competitive system, that it should be confined to literary and intellectual accomplishments. I think, on the contrary, that physical qualifications might also be taken into account after a preliminary examination; candidates for military appointments should have an opportunity of showing their fitness—as, for instance, in riding across country, quickness of eye, a zeal in making himself acquainted with the details of the profession—for that branch of the service in which they were desirous of obtaining employment; all these considerations ought to have full weight, and the Secretary of State might make rules requiring as a necessary condition fitness for the military service. In supporting the Bill which was introduced on this subject by my noble Friend the Member fur Tiverton I stated that I thought it would be most unfortunate if the proposed change interfered with or diminished the position of the civil and military services of the East India Company. Those services, both civil and military, are most distinguished. I am sure it will be admitted that the military officers in the service of the East India Company who held commands at different stations when the mutiny broke out evinced a degree of courage, intelligence, and promptitude which was highly honourable to them, and which showed that no circumstances, however unexpected, and no dangers, however appalling, prevented them from applying all their energies—prudence, courage, and coolness—to meet the emergency in which they were placed. I should be extremely sorry if from a partiality for the service of the Crown, or from any undue deference to persons holding high commands, the military service of the East India Company should be in any respect disparaged or its attractions diminished. There is another subject of the greatest importance in India, and to which the Council will have to devote their earnest attention—the administration of justice. It is impossible to read the papers which have during the last few years been laid before Parliament without being convinced that the administration of justice

  1955
  in India has been most unsatisfactory, and that the subject was one which must be dealt with with energy and wisdom. At the same time, it would be unwise and imprudent to attempt this year to make any material change in the internal Government of India, either of an administrative or executive character. The reason why I press for immediate legislation for India is that no time may be lost in enabling the Crown and the Ministers of the Crown to bring in measures next year for promoting the happiness and prosperity of the people of India. He had heard it said, with great truth, that unless Parliament contributed to the welfare and happiness of the people of India, to the due administration of justice, to the protection of the lives and properties of the millions in India, it had no business to attempt to govern that great empire. It is my belief that we can do so. It is, however, an arduous problem, and it is in no spirit of party—a thing which is, I am happy to see, absent from all our discussions upon this point—but with a view to our making legislation as satisfactory as possible, that I have ventured to introduce to the House my own poor notions upon the question. It is with these views I move that the Committee do not consist of more than twelve members.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he should be glad to hear from the noble Lord whether he proposed that the members of the Council should be nominated by the Crown upon the advice of the Minister of the day, and whether they were to hold their office for life or for a limited period?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he proposed that the nominations should be in the Crown. Whether they should not be made subject to such limitations as the Government might propose, that the persons should have served in some capacity in India, or whether the first members should or should not be named in the Bill, were questions which he would rather leave to the Government. For himself he should not object to the nominations to the first Council being in the Bill, reserving to himself, of course, the liberty to judge of the nominations to be made. If the Government thought that the first nominations ought to be made by the Crown, he should not be disinclined to give them the full power of making these nominations on their own responsibility. He proposed that the Members of the Council should hold their offices during good be-
  1956
  haviour. He had heard objections to this tenure, but he thought it the best. When a man, whatever might be his qualifications or former experience, had served for some years in this Council, he would probably, if a man of sense, be more fit to continue a Member of the Council than he was to enter it at the beginning. For himself, he could say that when he was Secretary of State, if Mr. Phillipps, the Under Secretary for the Home Department, or Sir James Stephen, the Under Secretary of the Colonial Office, had come to him and said his time of office had expired, he should have felt his resignation to be a great loss, because his services would have become more valuable to him than they were two years previously. If, however, the Committee thought that a term of service ought to be named, it should not be less than ten years. As India was an exhausting climate, it might be said with some truth that a man who had lived in India, and had afterwards served for ten years on the Council, was hardly so fit to continue a Member as if he had never left this country.
  MR. ELLICEwished to know whether his noble Friend intended that the Governor General of India, the Governors of the Presidencies, and the Members of Council in India should be appointed absolutely by the Crown.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he proposed that the Governor General of India and the Governors of the two Presidencies should be appointed by the Crown. With regard to the Members of the Council, he could not say which was the best course to pursue until the questions to which he had adverted were settled.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that if the word "more" were inserted in the Resolution, he should propose that it be followed by the words "than fifteen Members." There were one or two points of the noble Lord's address to which he wished to advert; but he thought that there was some disadvantage in discussing the various questions of nomination and election, the tenure of office, and patronage, upon a simple Resolution as to the number of the Council to be created, because the debate could only end by affirming the number of members, leaving all the other points unsettled, and to be discussed again when they should be specifically raised; but he was ready to admit that it was not easy to consider what ought to be the number of the Council, without considering at the

  1957
  same time what was to be the nature of its duties. He agreed with the noble Lord, that the Council would only be valuable in so far as it contained members of high character, a considerable proportion of whom had obtained experience in India. He also agreed with him that Men of that class and position would not join any body in which they filled a merely subordinate position, after having filled, it might be, very important offices in India. The noble Lord proposed that the Council should be divided into four Committees, each having a secretary; but that was rather a matter of departmental detail which could not be well decided in that House. The noble Lord said, that in all probability in future years the business of the Indian Government would be more and more performed in India. That was, however, a difficult question to settle, and he should not like to speak confidently upon it. If there were to be an effective supervision on the part of the authorities at home over Indian matters, the habit of constant supervision must be kept up, and that could not be done without extending it to matters of minute detail. Any one acquainted with the business of a department even less extensive and less important than that of the Indian Government must be aware that a change in routine was always a matter of some inconvenience, and that a sudden change was almost inconsistent with the performance of public business. However they might look forward, some being more and some less sanguine, to a reduction in the amount of business in the Indian Department in future years, they had no right to speculate upon it, and they had not to make provision for it now. But if, ten or twenty years hence, it was found that, in consequence of the new arrangement, the amount of business was less, it would be open to Parliament to reconsider the question, and to diminish the number of Councillors and the establishment with due regard to the amount of work to be done. The noble Lord rather threw out the suggestion than raised the question upon which the House was to express an opinion, that all the members of the Council should have the title of Privy Councillors. He (Lord Stanley) quite agreed that, the Council being resolved on—and the House had already decided such a Council to be necessary—it would be important to confer upon them all the dignity which such a Council ought to possess; but the question, whether they should be Privy
  1958
  councillors or not was entirely for the Crown. With regard to the much wider question, whether it was expedient that the Members of the Council should be at the same time Members of Parliament, he thought there were fair grounds of argument either way. He knew it might be contended that they ought not to exclude those who desired a position in both assemblies. But upon the whole, remembering especially what the noble Lord had said, in which he quite agreed, that the functions of the proposed Council were to be the functions of a Cabinet, and considering, also, that there was to be no exclusive Secret Committee, and that all the Members of the Council would have an equal right to be informed of what passed with regard to Indian affairs, there seemed to be valid arguments against admitting those gentlemen to seats in the House. Although he was ready to admit that no mere party quarrels would be likely or ought to lead to a want of harmony between the Minister of India and his Council, still they must bear in mind that not only English questions, but questions of Indian policy, would be frequently discussed in the House of Commons, and he did not see how the Indian Cabinet, to use the noble Lord's term, was to work if upon those questions, actuated by conscientious convictions, the secret and confidential advisers of the Minister were to condemn the course which, upon his responsibility, the Minister was prepared to take. It seemed to him that, considering the duties intended to be imposed on the Council, any man of delicate feelings, who had well weighed the responsibilities of both positions, would not desire also to act as a Member of Parliament, because either his official position must compel him to compromise his own convictions with regard to Indian policy when it was discussed, or else, in the faithful performance of his Parliamentary duties, he must argue against the Indian Minister with the advantage of that official knowledge of what was doing which he had acquired as the Minister's colleague. With regard to salaries, the proposition put forward by the Government in their Bill was that the salary of a Councillor should be £1,000 a year. The noble Lord did not think that enough, and proposed £1,500 a year. He agreed that the question of expense was not to be considered in comparison with the efficiency of the Council; but it ought to be borne in mind that those at least who had served in India would be in

  1959
  possession of retiring pensions, which they would not forfeit by accepting office, and which must therefore be added to the salary they received. He thought that the Government fixed the moderate sum of £1,000 a year, not as an equivalent for the amount of work to be done, but rather as a compensation for the additional expense to which the Members of the Council would be put by an habitual residence in London. Upon the wide and difficult question of patronage, to which the noble Lord had alluded, he had touched briefly the other night, and therefore he would say little upon it now. He had never said that open competition was not the mode by which efficient officers could be obtained for the army. What be said was this—and he repeated it—that the experiment of open competition with regard to the civil service was a recent introduction. It was an experiment which he admitted had succeeded in the civil service, and, wishing it well from the first, he had supported it when it was opposed by many hon. Members. But, for reasons which he would give, he did not think it applied as conveniently to the military as it did to the civil service. He did not think it desirable to say that they would at once close the entrance to the Indian army to all persons who had not passed an open competitive examination. There were a large number of men in every country who combined with considerable activity and a great desire for honour and distinction faculties which, judged by a purely intellectual standard, were not of a high order. Those men felt that they would not succeed in a civil employment, that it was not their vocation; and these men, feeling that in a purely intellectual profession their success was, to say the least, very uncertain, and desiring at the same time to obtain distinction, were just the very men who were willing to imperil, and, if need be, to sacrifice their lives in military service, that so, by courage and self-devotion, they might attain that honour which by mere talent they could not hope to secure. He was not advocating intellectual inferiority, nor implying, as some seemed to do, that it was naturally connected with superiority in any other respect; he was only saying that there might be a very useful class of officers of that sort whom it was not desirable altogether to exclude. He did not intend to propose in detail any plan for the disposal of the patronage, but it had occurred to him that it might be dealt with in some
  1960
  such manner as this. The Government could have no objection to try the experiment of open competition with regard to some portion of the military appointments. If, for instance, the patronage were divided into a certain number of shares—as it was at present—if the share in the hands of the Minister were retained, and if the same proportion were transferred to the Council which the Directors now possessed, there would remain over and above, consequent on the difference of numbers between the Directors as they now were and the Council as it was intended to be, a number of admissions disposable, which might fairly be given by open competition. There was one observation of the noble Lord to which he would advert, because it showed the inherent difficulties of the subject. The noble Lord thought purely literary competion was not the means to obtain the most effective officers, and therefore he proposed competition of another description. Of what description the noble Lord did not distinctly say, but he supposed a competition in physical qualifications, which as regarded the army were as necessary as intellectual ones. Now there was the difficulty of dealing with the matter. With regard to the civil service, they might fairly make it a simple literary and intellectual test, and there would be no room for favouritism or partiality, because the examiner had no discretion—he was exercising a merely judicial function as to which of a large number of sets of answers to questions previously proposed was the best. But if they enlarged the duties of the examiner, or board of examiners, beyond that purely judicial function, they opened the door to all sorts of favouritism and partiality, or, what was almost as bad, suspicion of partiality, even if partiality did not exist; and by a sort of reaction, which was sure to follow, they would throw discredit on that which he should regret to see discredited—namely, the competitive system as applied to the civil service. He had no objection to see the experiment tried; he had no objection to see a part of the admissions made competitive; but he thought it would at least be premature to make it the only door of entrance. What the noble Lord had said with regard to the Council having to make laws for India would seem to clashrather with the duties of the Legislative Council in India. But as very considerable functions had been given by Parliament to that body, it was important that there should be no collision between the

  1961
  two. With regard to the superiority of a long tenure of office over a short tenure, and the relative merits of nomination as compared with election, he looked on them as questions implying rather different means of obtaining one end—the independence and the known independence of the Council. But of all plans which had yet been proposed, that embodied in the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton—nomination by the Crown, with a short tenure of office and the power of re-election—seemed of all the least likely to obtain this result. If that plan were adopted, the Members of the Council would be placed in a more subordinate position to the Minister than were those permanent civil servants in the public offices who were designated by the humble title of clerks. Although, theoretically, any one of those clerks might be removed at any time, yet, practically, their tenure not being terminable at a fixed period, no Minister did, or with a due regard to public opinion, could remove them, except for proved incompetence or misconduct. Every clerk in the public departments knew perfectly well that as long as he did his duty in a satisfactory manner he was as certain of his office as if it were held for life, But the position of a Councillor nominated for a short time was very different. Clearly the Minister could have no difficulty, and he would make no scruple in getting rid of a Councillor at the end of his term, because it would not be taking away from him anything of which he was in possession, but merely declining to confer upon him that to which he had no legal claim. Therefore by the plan of the noble Lord the Councillors would be in a position of much more immediate dependence on the Minister than any ordinary clerk. He could see but two methods which would secure independence in the members of the Council; one of which was contained in a subsequent Resolution, and by which a part of the Council was to be elected by a constituency to be named; the other to leave the nomination to the Crown, making it for a long term of years or during good behaviour. Either of these would obtain in a sufficient degree the object aimed at. Of course, a system of election would obtain that object more thoroughly, but the strong argument against it was the difficulty of finding a constituency of which the country would approve. It was not an insurmountable one, but still it did make very strongly against the elective
  1962
  principle. At the proper time he should submit the principle of election to the Committee, and if it did not meet with their sanction, the next best means of insuring the independence of the Council would undoubtedly be to adopt the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and declare that the Councillors should be nominated by the Crown, and should hold their offices during good behaviour. He had now gone through the main points of the noble Lord's address—he was not sure that in doing so he was strictly regular, but he thought, considering the nature of the question under discussion, that there should be no hesitation or delay in stating the views of the Government.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he regretted the noble Lord had not touched upon the subject of the duties of the Council, which had a most important bearing on this Resolution, inasmuch as upon them in a great degree depended the question of numbers. The whole argument in favour of a large number was founded on the supposition that the Council was to be divided into committees, just as the Court of Directors was now. To that system he strongly objected. It was most cumbrous and inconvenient. The main reason why it had been proposed to dispense with the Court of Directors was that it was in many respects not so much a Council of advice as of antagonism. He used the word without any intention of reflecting upon them, for it was the natural tendency of what ought to be co-ordinate powers to spend their time in opposition to each other rather than to direct their efforts to concert of action. It was therefore important, in discussing this point, to know what it was these committees of Councillors were to do. Under the present system all the despatches which came to the India House passed through the hands of the clerks, the chairs, and the three committees; but the "Previous Communications" were arranged between the Chairs and the President of the Board of Control alone, and it was not till after that stage that the committees had the despatches laid before them. The committees consisted each of six Directors, four or five of their number being in most cases superfluous. No record was kept at the India House of the attendance of Directors; but if such a record could have been produced he thought it would show that the business was transacted to a great degree by the chairmen of the committees. A very

  1963
  strong argument against such division into committees was that it tended to diminish responsibility. The best plan would be to make each member of the Council responsible for some particular department, and to require that each should present to the Board a Report of the transactions which occurred in his department. If that plan were adopted, there would be no necessity for a large number of Councillors. The whole of the despatches that came from and were sent to India went through the Board of Control; and although it was true that the initiative part was undertaken at the India House, yet the supervision took place at the Board of Control, and he contended, therefore, that the Board had as much business to discharge in connection with the receipt and forwarding of despatches as the whole administration of the India House. The truth was that the work at the latter place was performed almost entirely by secretaries and clerks, and that the committees were really not necessary. What could they have done without such men as Sir James Melvill, Mr. John Stuart Mill, and Mr. Kaye? He wished that the noble Lord would tell the House what was the business which he proposed to intrust to the Councillors; because if it were not more than sufficient to occupy six or eight men there could be no necessity for appointing twelve. As to their sitting in Parliament he differed from his noble Friend the Member for London, for he thought that if they were to do so the whole object of the Bill would be frustrated. They would immediately become partisans. They would either be all sitting on the side of the Government who had proposed them—in which case everybody would object to the Government gaining twelve additional supporters by such means; or they would sit opposite them, in which event great inconvenience would result, for there would be a perpetual wrangle between the President of the Board and his Councillors. With respect to a Secret Committee, he admitted that it was a difficult question to determine where the power should be lodged. His own feeling was in favour of reposing it entirely on the Secretary of State. If these twelve Councillors were to be consulted on questions of war and peace, treaties and negotiations, and were to be treated as an Indian Cabinet, he could see no end to the difficulties that would follow. There were questions of war and peace relating to States neighbouring to India in
  1964
  which European interests might be involved. Take as an illustration the celebrated case of the Affghan war, which had been so often discussed, and in which European interests were concerned. All those questions would of course go before the political Cabinet of the Queen; but were they also to go before the Cabinet of India? Was the Foreign Office to be open to the Cabinet of India as well as to the Cabinet of the Queen?—and, if not, how were they to give advice? The plan, if acted on, would lead to interminable difficulties; and he thought, therefore, that to make the Council a secret committee would be a most undesirable proceeding. As regarded the question of numbers, the same arguments against reduction had always been used. He remembered that in 1853 they were employed against reducing the numbers of Directors from twenty-four to eighteen; but eighteen had done the work just as well as the twenty-four, and he believed that twelve or eight would do quite as well as—if not better than—eighteen. He agreed with his noble Friend the Member for London that the salary of £1,000 a year was rather small; but he thought the noble Lord had underrated the patriotism of old Indians. Men, on their return from India, were so desirous of occupation, that many eminent persons would, he was satisfied, readily give their services at a less salary even than £1,000 a year. He remembered when "old Indians," as they were called, used to visit him at the Board of Control, that they always expressed their readiness to undertake office in connection with India, and the interview rarely ended without a request on their part to be placed on the Board of Directors. With regard to, patronage, which would be a part of the remuneration in fact—though no doubt it was a species of remuneration to which there must be some objection—they had heard the Court of Directors eulogized for the excellent use they had made of it, and he had no doubt that the Council would deal equally well with the patronage intrusted to them. He was glad to hear the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control say he was inclined to pause before he opened up the whole of the military service to competition. At the same time, he rejoiced to hear what the noble Lord had said with regard to the competitive system in the Civil Service, because he had heard with great regret a statement made the other night by another noble

  1965
  Lord, that the persons who had gone out to India in the Civil Service, since the introduction of the competitive position, were inferior in social system to those who went before them. He could only say that when he was at the India Board he saw nothing to bear out this reflection, for a finer or more gentlemanly class of men than those usually appointed to the Civil Service of India he had never seen. Many of them had been educated at the Universities. The competitive system had been productive of the best effects; but he admitted that, when they came to apply it to the military service, the matter assumed a very different aspect. He thought that the qualifications of cadets for the military services might be ascertained, not so much by competition as by inquiries at the localities in which they resided, and where a knowledge of their character and habits could be obtained. He had himself offered three cadetships to the school where he had been educated—Eton—and the Principal asked him what intellectual qualifications he should require. He replied that he should require good intellectual qualifications, but that physical qualifications were necessary, and he should prefer those who had been in the "Eleven" at cricket, or who had rowed in the boats. The Principal laughed a little at that remark, but he produced three as fine young men as could be imagined, and they were now doing the country good service. The right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) had put a question as to the appointment of the Council by election, and he was glad to hear the noble Lord express an adverse opinion, for he did not think he would be able to find a properly qualified electoral body. As to the noble Lord's objection to the principle of nomination in the Bill of the late Government, and to the period for which the nomination was to last, he would only observe that to him it was matter of indifference whether the period was eight or ten years. All he contended for was, that the term should be long enough to secure independence and experience, but not too long to allow the members to grow rusty in the service. His noble Friend would no doubt agree with him that if the tenure of office was during good behaviour, a member might occasionally sit a little longer than was desirable; and it would be a difficult and a delicate thing for any Minister to intimate to such gentleman that he should retire. He thought it desirable that the term should be fixed. As
  1966
  to the number of the Council, he entreated the noble Lord to consider well, before he made the Council what might turn out to be too numerous. They did not want a little Parliament, but a Council of advice for the President of the Board of Control. If there were enough to allow for the representation of the various interests of India, he thought that the Minister would derive great assistance from them; but if they were too numerous, great evil would result. He thought that the Council should be eight, or certainly not more than twelve.
  MR. T. BARING: The question, as he understood it, was a proposition that the number of the Council should be not more than fifteen; and, if so, the original words would nearly have met the case, by providing that the Council should be not more than eighteen, nor less than twelve. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Vernon Smith) seemed to think that the Members of Council ought to act only as Heads of Departments, and not as Committees; but how would that system work in practice? Take the question of finance and revenue. If one man only was to manage that department, instead of a Committee, how could it be expected that he should be acquainted with the different systems that prevailed in the different Presidencies? To manage the department well it was absolutely necessary to obtain information from various sources; but this could not be done if the numbers of the Council were so limited that they could only act as heads of Departments, and not as Committees. The same observation would apply to the other departments of the service. The extent of our Indian dominions was so large, the variety of interests so wide, and the differences and peculiarities of the inhabitants so great, that to put one man who was conversant of the affairs of one Presidency or Territory to manage the affairs of another would be attended with the greatest possible disadvantage. His right hon. Friend said that there was a vast quantity of uninteresting matter brought before the existing Committees, and thought it would be better to do away with the system, and he referred to Sir James Melvin and Mr. John Stuart Mill: but how did they obtain their information but from the mass of details which came before them? Though there might be a question whether the amount of details might not be diminished, yet he should be sorry if any Council ceased to obtain a constant supply of records of facts as to India, for

  1967
  he believed it was the only way to ascertain the conduct of its administration in India—if at any time they ceased to claim those constant Reports they would find the officials in India very ready to refrain from what caused them great trouble; and if they did not have those Reports they could not ascertain how the principles of government were carried into effect. He did not hear from the noble Lord the Member for London, nor from the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control, whether the intention was that this Council should have frequent periodical and continuous sittings, and whether it was intended that the President should constantly attend the meetings of the Council. He must, for himself say, that as far as he had been able to form an opinion, he believed that the best Government, if there was to be a change, would be to adopt the same system in England as was adopted in India—that the Minister for the Affairs of India should be "the President in Council," just as the Governor General of India was President of the Council at Calcutta; and that the matter in question should be voted first by a majority, but still leaving the President in Council the power to overthrow that majority, even though they were unanimous against him, and to act on his own opinion, provided he recorded his reasons for so overruling the Council. There was no magic in any particular number of the members, and he was not sure that if they had only twelve members, that they would be all efficient men. If they transacted their business in Committees, and had three Committees, they would reduce the number of the members of the Committees to a very low amount, such as would not allow for the ordinary casualties, such as sickness. The present course, he believed, was for the Chairman of the Committee to explain the Report of the Committee to the Directors, and then, if any further information was wanted, it was asked for. It was, in fact, a regular Council. Much stress had been laid upon the delay which had taken place on the part of the East India Company—that cumbrous machinery, as it had been termed—in answering despatches from India; but the truth was, that in cases of urgency despatches were answered by them in a fortnight, by the next mail. If cases not requiring immediate attention were not immediately attended to, that was nothing more than occurred in the Foreign Office. There was promptitude
  1968
  where promptitude was necessary. He spoke with the greatest diffidence on the subject; but, after listening with the greatest deference to what fell from the two noble Lords, he confessed that he should very much regret if there was a constant communication of every proceeding in India to the home Government, for he believed that that was a great check on the Government there. With regard to the question of salary, he did not think that the difference of a few thousand pounds a year would be any serious obstacle in the way of adopting a larger number of Councillors. Any honour—in the shape of being made Privy Councillors, for instance—would, he thought, be very desirable; but if it was thought that would attract gentlemen from India to become Councillors more than a seat in Parliament would, he very much doubted the correctness of that assumption. Whether the salary of each Councillor should be £1,000 or £1,500 was not, perhaps, very importtant; but he would say that the people of this country would rather pay a large salary for efficient services than a smaller one for inefficient services. It was, however, very desirable that the Councillors should receive sufficient salaries to place them, he would not say beyond temptation, but beyond the pressure of limited means. He did not feel competent to give an opinion as to Members of the Council being in Parliament, but it would be a useful means of obtaining information by questioning those Members, and it would be well to have some check upon the Minister through the Council, and they might secure that by enabling the Members to make in Parliament such statements as they might deem requisite in the discharge of their duties. The object must be to make an independent as well as an efficient Council. As to choice of Councillors by election, he doubted whether it would work. He believed that if they were nominated for a period of years or for life, it would be more likely than any other mode to insure an independent Council. There was another question brought before the Committee, one of very great difficulty—he alluded to the question of patronage. There were two kinds of patronage—nomination in England and afterwards promotion in India. They might be able, perhaps, to prevent, by open competition, any charge of favouritism, in the first instance; but they did not exclude, by open competition, the favour of the Minister

  1969
  being sought for promotion afterwards. There would be applications from friends of the Minister, from his supporters in that House, and from constituents of supporters, asking him, not perhaps for preference, but to give a fair chance to a particular young man, and if he had merits to promote him. Similar influence would be used with Governors in India, and he did not know how it was to be guarded against. It might be said that the Court of Directors had done the same, but nobody had any permanent control over them. They had not yet heard from the Government what were to be the duties of the Council; they had not heard whether they were to act as a constant Council sitting regularly with the President in Council; nor whether they were to be divided into Committees, or to be merely the heads of Departments. If they wished to have every province in some degree represented in Council, he did not think eighteen Members would be too many.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it might be convenient to put the Question in form: it was, that the word "more" be inserted in the terms of the Resolution.
  Loan STANLEYwished to explain, The Resolution had been accidentally left in a very incomplete state on a former evening, and it was now proposed to in sort the word "more." When that Amendment had been agreed to, he would propose to insert the words "than fifteen," and the question of number would then be fairly before the Committee.
  Question, "That the word 'more' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he would now propose to insert the words "than fifteen," and in so doing he would merely say that the really necessary number could only be ascertained by the practical working of the system. He would ask power to make the number as large as fifteen; but if it should appear hereafter that that number was not necessary, he did not wish to pledge the Committee to the appointment of so many.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "twelve," and insert the word "fifteen."
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he would adhere to his number of twelve.
  MR. CUMMING BRUCEthought even the number of fifteen would not adequately discharge the duties that would devolve upon the Council. He was decidedly of opinion that the number should be eighteen. One great use of the Council would
  1970
  be its check on the Minister himself in the performance of his functions. If it were possible for the noble Lord who was President of the Board of Control permanently to hold that office, he should be disposed to place every confidence in such a Minister, knowing that the natural quality of his mind would always prompt him to reject everything in the nature of jobbery; but occasions might arise when it would be desirable to interpose a barrier against jobbery, and the machinations of such a prince of intriguers as Ali Moorad of Scinde. Not only did that black sheep deceive the great General who was the conqueror of Scinde, but he hoodwinked and humbugged a still more able man—namely, Lord Ellenborough; he was also able to humbug the late President of the Board of Control—so much that he was disposed to overrule the decision at which both the Court of Directors in Leadenhall Street and the local Government in India arrived with regard to him. That such things might not happen again, he (Mr. C. Bruce) wished to have a Council sufficiently numerous, and sufficiently intelligent to act as an efficient check upon such intriguers. While respecting the great talents and high character of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) he could not forego that opportunity of saying how, from the bottom of his heart, he regretted the retirement from the office of President of the Board of Control of Lord Ellenborough, who, from his experience, his knowledge, and his large statesmanlike views, was more competent to fill it efficiently than, perhaps, any other man. Believing all that, he still had the greatest confidence in his successor, knowing, as he did, not only his great abilities, but that he possessed that independence of character which might be said to be hereditary in his family. But he entreated the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) not to be led away too rapidly to a conclusion on the matter under consideration. It was impossible they could have an efficient Council with the limited numbers he proposed. We had got six great divisions of territory in India, and he thought there ought to be not less than six different Committees formed of members of the proposed Council, one for each division of territory, if the business was to be done efficiently. He should be willing to take eighteen as the number of the Council, and to leave three members of the Council as a Committee for each of the six divisions of territory. Again, he would have in every one of those Committees one

  1971
  man at least who was well acquainted with the particular department of India with which the Committee was charged. If those Committees were so formed, every question coming home for consideration from India would be so thoroughly investigated and sifted as to insure a satisfactory decision. He would give the Indian Minister a power of choosing at his own discretion any two or three members of the Council, and conferring upon them powers similar to those, enjoyed by the Secret Committee, with the exception that the ultimate power in every matter connected with the administration of Indian affairs should be vested in the President; who, in cases where he dissented from the Council, should record his reason for such dissent. The Council ought, in his opinion, to be sufficiently numerous to admit of being divided into six Committees, consisting each of three members. The Council, be it remembered, would have to act as a Court of Appeal for the whole of India. On a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) had spoken of the Court of Directors as all humbug; but the fact was, that the contentment and loyalty of the great mass of the people depended more upon a just administration of the affairs of every-day life than they did upon matters of peace and war or diplomacy; and, with all respect for the local Government in India, he must say, that in many instances individual cases of hardship had only been redressed upon appeal to the Court of Directors; and, with all respect for our countrymen holding high office in India, he must say that, knowing how they were removed from the moral influences which surrounded every one in this country, he should be sorry to see them relieved from a sense of responsibility created by the constant overhauling of their proceedings by the authorities at home. He held in his hand a book written by a gentleman who was in the civil service of India and a Member of that House, in which he described many cases of most atrocious injustice committed on the Natives which had come under his notice. Many years back an order had been issued by the Government of Madras giving encouragement to Natives in public situations to look for advancement and encouragement if they faithfully performed their duty; but he knew of a case where a Native officer, who had been in the service for twenty years, was accused of crime and convicted upon false evidence. It was
  1972
  afterwards made manifest that he was innocent; but yet he would have been ruined but for his appeal to the Court of Directors, who ordered him to be restored to his former position. That was not an isolated case, for there were many of a similar character, with the details of which he would not weary the House; and, for his own part, he thought that if he were to go to India and make inquiries on the spot, he should find that every one of the causes which had been assigned for the mutiny, and which were now made the pretext for altering the Government of India, should be laid at the door of Cannon Row, rather than of Leadenhall Street and that the place of execution should be the former and not the latter. As to the number of members of which the Council should be composed, he thought that a large number would give security for the independence of the Council in a political point of view. The Committee must bear in mind what had been the origin of the two Bills that had already been before them upon this subject. When the news of the Indian mutiny reached this country, an excited state of feeling arose, of which the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton availed himself to propose the Court of Directors as a sufficient sacrifice for our mistakes in that country. The Court of Directors had not been the cause of the mutiny, but they had a large amount of patronage, and it might have occurred to the noble Lord that the possession of that patronage would insure the existence of a "strong Government," The present Government, if they had been allowed to consult their own feelings, would not have introduced any Bill at all, but they yielded to the distinctly expressed opinion of the House, and introduced a measure which was certainly not open to the imputation of a desire to obtain patronage. It was absolutely necessary that there should be no tampering with that difficulty, and, therefore, it was the duty of the Committee to prevent, as far as possible, any interference with the political freedom of the Council to be appointed. He should be glad if the Council could be made to a certain extent elective; but as to the number he did hope the House would not rashly decide upon fixing so small a number as fifteen, but that, as there would be a locus penitentiæ when the Bill itself came before them, the noble Lord would at least consent to eighteen members. He offered these remarks from no desire to embarrass

  1973
  the Government, which he desired to see continue in office, as he believed it would, for they had effected as much in three months as the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had done in three years. He had been asked when the present Government entered upon office what duration he would assign to them; to which he replied five years; but seeing what had occurred during the brief period of their administration, the admirable manner in which our foreign affairs had been regulated, the fair and faith-keeping Budget that had been produced, he was now inclined to attribute to the Government an existence of at least ten years. If it were open to him he should certainly wish to move that the number of the Council be eighteen.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that the House, before deciding on the number of the Council, should determine the nature of its functions, and as to how far they were to assimilate with those of the present Court of Directors; whether its members were to be strictly limited to the duties attaching to the office, or whether they were to be permitted to engage in other business; but the point to which he attached the greatest importance was, whether the members of the Council were to have seats in that House. He leaned strongly to the view that the members of the Council should be eligible to sit in Parliament. One of the greatest difficulties which the new Council would have to struggle with would be the want of connection with the House of Commons. The present Court of Directors had been greatly benefited by being aided by the trading ability and experience of London as well as by the advantage of a connection with that House. It was said that if the members of the Council were allowed to sit in Parliament. they would necessarily become partisans. But experience had proved the contrary. The members of the Court of Directors who had had seats in that House for many years past had certainly not been amenable to the reproach of partisanship. They had shown themselves a real and impartial Council on Indian questions, whether they gave their advice to the Minister of the day or to the House of Commons. It was said, further, that a seat in Parliament would interfere with their other functions. Even if that were true he would give them all up for the seat in Parliament; but he did not see how their functions would necessarily be interfered with. It had been said by the
  1974
  late Mr. James Mill, that if all the secret despatches which had ever been sent out to India had been put into the fire before they left this country, the state of our Indiam empire would have very little differed from what we saw it. There was much force in this assertion, which was meant to imply that which was no doubt very true—namely, that India was governed in practice more according to the judgment of successive viceroys than in direct conformity with instructions from home. There was not much danger, then, in the proposed Council having too powerful a voice in the determination of Indian questions. An important consideration in deciding on the number of the Council, was whether they were to be appointed by nomination or election; and that when they were chosen there was no absolute certainty of all being capable of discharging their high functions. Another consideration was, whether these Councillors should consist entirely of old Indians, or whether there should be an infusion of the English element in the body. In the present Court of Directors there were a certain number of gentlemen who, though they had never had the advantage of an Indian experience, had yet proved valuable accessions to the Directorate. He was decidedly of opinion that it was of the highest importance that there should be an infusion of the English element in the new Council. For these and for other reasons it was desirable that the number of councillors should not be fewer than that proposed by the present Government. The Court of Directors had no doubt been sometimes found a most convenient screen for a Minister, and had been used by him in order to keep Indian questions out of that house. It had, however, acted on the whole as a real and substantial check on the Government, although the President of the Board of Control under the late Government had described it as an obstructive body. Any Council, however constituted, must operate to a certain degree in diminishing the responsibility of the Minister; and it would depend very much on the future decisions of the House in connection with these Resolutions, and more particularly on the functions to be intrusted to the proposed Councillors, whether the Council would act as a screen or as a wholesome check. Believing this to be a vital question, unless the House was prepared to make the Council a real check upon the Minister he should be prepared to agree with the hon. and

  1975
  learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck)—rather to have a single responsible Minister without a Council, than to have a Council which should be a shadow and a sham. For these reasons he should vote for the Council being constituted of the larger number.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he quite concurred with his noble Friend who opened the discussion, in thinking that the most important point involved in the subject which the Committee was engaged in discussing was the constitution of the new Council for India. They were all agreed that there ought to be a responsible Minister who should have the power of overruling the opinions of his assistants; the great question was how the Council forming his assistants should be constituted. Now the principle elements for consideration in the formation of that Council were, what should be its numbers, what the mode of its appointment, and what the tenure of office in the case of its members, and what were the functions they should be called upon to perform. They were now engaged in considering the first of those elements; but they could not discuss it properly without some reference to the others. No one could doubt that the question, what were the functions these Councillors would have to perform. for instance, was closely connected with the question how many there should be of them. Now he perfectly concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) in thinking that one of the main functions of the Government at home would consist in reviewing the proceedings of the Government in India. An opinion seemed to be entertained in certain quarters that the work to be done in this country might be much diminished; and some of the details which were sent from that country for consideration in this were, no doubt, of a trifling character and might well be dispensed with for the future; but taking into account the increasing interest in Indian affairs which was exhibited by the House of Commons, he could not arrive at the conclusion that there could henceforward be any diminution in the amount of information upon Indian subjects which would be demanded at home. That there should be a review of the proceedings which took place in India he deemed to be of essential importance; for, while he quite concurred in the view that the Executive of that country should exercise its functions mainly in India, he
  1976
  thought it was extremely expedient that such a check should be put upon its action as the review to which he referred would afford. In the country itself no such check could prevail, inasmuch as there was no native public opinion, and inasmuch also as that of the English inhabitants of India was not as recent events had proved, always directed to the best ends; and therefore, they could no more trust to public opinion there for a check, than they could have trusted to the check of the West India planters upon the West Indian Government in the days of slavery. They must, therefore, seek that check at home, and he did not believe that check would be a sinecure. But beyond the object to which he had alluded, of exercising a revision of the details of the proceedings in India—a revision which he might observe he had found to be most useful in the case of the revenue and the judicial departments in that country when he had the honour to be at the head of the Board of Control—one of the chief functions of the proposed Council would be to afford advice to the responsible Minister for India in the execution of his duties. Now, he entirely agreed with the noble Lord the President of the Board of Control in his opinion, that it was hardly possible for the House of Commons to prescribe with advantage the mode in which the business of the Council should be carried on; whether for instance, by means of small committees, or by placing one person at the head of a particular department. That was a question which could, he thought, be satisfactorily determined only by experience. He had himself no objection to the committee system, which he believed had worked well in the Court of Directors; but from his own experience, and especially while at the Board of Admiralty, he would prefer a system where an individual was placed at the head of a particular department, with power to transact the ordinary business of the department, bringing every question of importance before the whole Council. So far as the introduction of an English element into the Council was concerned, no better men, he should contend, could with that view be selected than such men as Sir J. Melvill and Mr. Mill. His own opinion, however, was that the Members of the Council should be composed altogether of persons possessing some Indian experience. Other two questions had been raised, whether the members ought to be engaged in other busi-

  1977
  ness, and whether they ought to sit in Parliament. He was unfavourable to both. Without going at any length into the question of election, which would come before them on a subsequent occasion, he might state his opinion that the proper person to appoint them was the Indian Minister himself, who both knew what was the kind of men he wanted, and who had a greater interest in obtaining those men than any constituency could have. These considerations having been duly weighed, would assist them to come to an opinion as to the number required. For his part he thought twelve was the utmost that could be required; he thought a still smaller number would be sufficient. It was true the Court of Directors was a larger body, but the most of them were engaged in other avocations, and therefore a smaller Council could easily do all the business which was now performed by that Court. The same objections as were now urged against having a small Council were advanced when, in 1853, he reduced the number of Directors from 24 to 18. They had not been sustained by experience; on the contrary, he was told only the other day by one of the oldest Members of the Court, that the reduction of the number of Directors had materially contributed to its efficiency. He might appeal to the experience of every Gentleman present, whether they did not find that whenever a large Committee was appointed the business practically fell into the hands of one or two, and whenever this House appointed a Committee that was to do work they appointed one of eight or at the most seven members. If, indeed, they were to adhere to the original scheme of the Government, and have a Member representing every several presidency and every several department of the Indian service, they would require a large Council; but the noble Lord said nothing of that scheme, which he was glad of, as he thought that scheme a remarkably bad one; it would have crippled the free choice of the Minister, and was likely to act very injuriously on the public service. The preparation of despatches now executed at the India House would be performed by the able men engaged in the department, and he could therefore see no reason for having more than twelve Members of the Council. Nay, if they were now fixing the number of the Council, without any reference to that of the Court of Directors, he did not believe that any one would pro-
  1978
  pose so large a number. The fear that the Council would not be independent he regarded as a more bugbear. He should be ashamed to think, much more to say, that half a dozen, or a dozen English gentlemen would be so contemptible as to sacrifice their opinions on great questions affecting the government of India to a desire to be reappointed to their seats in the Council. And let the House remember who these Councillors were to be. They would be men who had held high offices in India, had acted as ambassadors at Native Courts, and had ruled provinces with pro-consular power,—men who, having spent the greater portion of their lives in India, took a deep interest in Indian affairs and very little in those of England: and was it likely that they would sacrifice the welfare of the Government of which they felt themselves a part rather than give an independent opinion to a Minister? Some persons said that in order that they might be independent they ought to be appointed for life; but he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington) whether he did not receive perfectly independent opinions from the Members of the Board of Admiralty, who were removable at the pleasure of the Crown. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) said, that to confer their offices upon them only during good behaviour, as proposed by his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) would place them in a less permanent position than clerks in the public offices. He did not see the force of this comparison; but he could assure the noble Lord that inconvenience frequently arose from the difficulty of removing a man who had become unfit for his office. There should not, however, be too long a term of office, or there would be felt a want of new blood. It was essential, that we should be able to introduce into the Council from time to time persons of recent experience in India. He did not believe there would be any difficulty in finding good, able, independent men of Indian experience willing to take their places in the Council and to devote their whole time to the discharge of their duties. His own opinion was that a smaller number than twelve might be appointed. Did the House intend that the Minister for Indian affairs should be responsible to the Crown and the country, or was the Council to act as his screen? He thought the Minister should be responsible. If we were to have a little Parliament, in which long speeches were to be made, it would be far

  1979
  better to make no change at all, because at present the Board of Control was not hampered by protracted discussions, and when he (Sir C. Wood) was at the Board of Control and wanted any information he sent for those of the Directors whom he thought most competent to give it, and he always received valuable assistance from them. He thought, therefore, that Parliament should look to the responsible Minister of the Crown, and give him all the assistance necessary; but they should not hamper him with a Council so large that it would be an hindrance instead of an assistance to him. He was strongly of opinion that the Members of the Council, being nominees of the Crown, should not be allowed to sit in Parliament.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he had not risen earlier because he felt unwilling to prolong a debate which appeared to him not to be quite to the point. The Resolution before the Committee had reference to the question whether the Council should consist of twelve or fifteen members. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) was for no Council at all, and he (Mr. Bright) was inclined to agree with him; but the majority of the House appeared to be of a different opinion. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton proposed a Council of eight; and when he introduced his Bill, he (Mr. Bright) was glad that he had not proposed a larger number, as he considered eight quite sufficient to do the business. He was sorry the noble Lord had not asked the Committee that night to limit the number to eight, as he believed he would have carried such a Motion. Some years ago there was a Council of twenty-four, which had been reduced by the late Government to eighteen, which, it was said, would lead to an improved manner of doing the business. He confessed he bad a wholesome dislike to anything like an approximation to the old state of things. He wanted, if possible, to get further away from eighteen, and still further away from twenty-four. He took it for granted that in future there would be more business done in India and less at home. ["No, no!"] Well, all he could say was, that if there was not more business done in India, and less at home, and the business at home confined to deciding upon great measures, and giving a veto or an assent, as the case might be, he could see no prospect of getting out of the difficulties in which we were now placed with reference to India. The noble Lord the Member for London
  1980
  had proposed twelve as a compromise between the proposition of the late and the present Government; and the President of the Board of Control had proposed another average. It was not of much consequence, after all, whether the number was eight, ten, or twelve; but he believed that a smaller number would do the business better, while at the same time there would be a saving of expense to the country. He feared there was too great an inclination in the House to cling to the former system, which every one was willing to admit had ended in a total failure. There was, he had no doubt, by far too much business transacted in this country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leominster (Mr. Willoughby) had spoken of the thousands of pages of collections which he had read. Every one knew that that hon. Gentleman had written more despatches than any man living, but had any one ever read those despatches? He should vote for the smallest number which was proposed. If the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton proposed eight he should support him, and if he did not, he would vote for twelve, as proposed by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. If this question had been decided an hour or two ago, they would have got through that evening all the other Resolutions, and then the Bill, in which some changes would probably be made by the Government, could have been introduced. But if they spent the whole evening in discussing whether the number should be twelve or fifteen, they would hardly get the Bill passed before the time when it was necessary to pay attention to grouse shooting in Scotland.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am happy to find that at last the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down and myself agree in opinion. It so happens that upon this subject I find my opinions more in accordance with his than perhaps with the opinions of any one else. If it were not that circumstances seem to require that the Minister for India should be assisted by persons of local experience, I should concur with the hon. Gentleman that the best arrangement would be to have simply a Minister with secretaries in the usual manner: but this is not an ordinary time. I quite agree in what he has stated, that the Committee should not, in determining the constitution of the Council, be led into an involuntary and unconscious adherence to the system which now exists. On the contrary, I

  1981
  think, as he has just said, that we ought to go as far from it as we can. I still adhere to the opinion that eight is quite sufficient; but as the general feeling of the Committee is at least doubtful upon that point, I am quite prepared to concur in the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London that twelve should be the maximum. That would leave open the question whether a smaller number would be sufficient, which could be decided when the Bill which is to be introduced comes before a Committee of the Whole House. I abstain from delaying the Committee by going into the various other topics which have been discussed—I only wish to press this on the Committee, that the Council to be appointed is only a Council to advise, not a Council to overrule and govern the Minister. We have all agreed that the home Government of India shall be managed by a Minister who shall be responsible to Parliament. Now, no Minister can be responsible to Parliament unless he is the master of his business; and if you surround him by a Council which you permit to overrule and thwart him, he ceases to be responsible; and when Parliament calls him to account, be will say—"Oh, my Council, which is independent, entertains different views, and I have been obliged to yield to its opinion." The Council ought to be independent to this extent:—Every member should give his opinion on any question which arises, freely, honestly, and sincerely, according to the best of his judgment; but I am quite convinced that it would be a great mistake to think that any men, whether they be Councillors, Lords of the Admiralty, or clerks of Departments, will ever imagine that they recommend themselves to their chief by giving unsound advice against their own opinions, simply for the purpose of ingratiating themselves with him. I can only say that, in all my experience as the head of a Department, I have always deemed that subordinate officer the best who gave his advice independently—according to his own opinion—whether he agreed with my opinion or not. You do not value a man because he agrees with you, but because he helps you; and if I find a man has led me into error, by suppressing his own opinion in order to agree with mine, I say that he is not the man I want—that the man I value is he who gave me advice against my own opinion—advice which, if I had followed, I Should not have found
  1982
  myself in the difficulty I am. The advice of a toad-eater is of no value. I therefore say that the business of the members of the Council will be to give honest and sincere advice to their principal. For this purpose I think eight would be sufficient; but I will vote for the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for London, as I do not think that proposition will preclude the House from reducing the number when the Bill comes before them.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that the question before the Committee merely related to the number of the Council; but, be asked, why should they fetter themselves now as to the number of the Council, when a Bill would be hereafter introduced? The original Resolution declared that the Council might consist of twelve or eighteen members, and that was a common sense, way of settling the question; for, as no one knew yet what the Council was to do, it was illogical to decide upon the precise number of members. He should like to know whether the members of the Council would have the power of recording their opinions, and whether the revenues of India were to be handed over to the President with all the checks, now existing by law removed. Was the Council to be any check on the Minister, or was he to be without control? If the Councillors were merely to pronounce an opinion which was to have no influence or weight, they would not get men whose advice was worth anything to accept the office. He also wanted to know whether the Government gave up the elective principle altogether. He hail clung to the hope that a portion of the Council might be elected, and he believed that a constituency might be found for the purpose; but, at all events, let not the House work in the dark, but let the matter be explained. Under all the circumstances, he thought it would be better at this stage of their proceedings to say that the Council should not be less than twelve or more than eighteen, which was the proposition of Her Majesty's Government. He hoped the House would not fetter itself by a dogmatical adhesion to a given number.
  MR. ELLICEwanted to know what they were to decide about? The whole work would have to be done again when they got into the Bill. He doubted the wisdom, from the first, of proceeding by Resolution—this Resolution being the keystone of the arch upon which the whole fabric was to rest. Hitherto it

  1983
  appeared to him as if they had been engaged in something like a Dutch auction. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who originally proposed that the Council should consist of eight, had now agreed to accept twelve. The noble Lord the Member for London had done him the honour to discuss this subject with him, and had to his knowledge had two or three opinions upon it. He admitted that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), in introducing his Bill, was one of the most instructive speeches he ever heard; but his Bill was a lamentable conclusion to so good a speech; but, de mortuis nil nisi bonum; and he might say the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to obtain the approval of any party in the House. They had a speech from his noble Friend the Member for Durham (Lord A. Vane-Tempest). He (Mr. Ellice), when his noble Friend rose, had attempted to speak too, but could not obtain a hearing; and now as he knew that hon. Members were anxious to draw the discussion to a close, he would confine his observations to a few words. The question now before the Committee was, what were to be the attributes of the new Council, what its constitution, what the duties it was to perform? Upon these heads the noble Lords the Members for London, Tiverton, and King's Lynn all seemed to differ, and differ materially. If they were to carry on the Government in India it would lead to all sorts of abuses—two or three little oligarchies, which would lead to all sorts and kinds of favouritism; they must have an active home review and vigilant observation of the Government in India, or that Government would fail. Do not let us have a sham, a mere screen for responsibility. If they were to have a Council, it must be a court of inquiry—a court of appeal. This would not be in any manner like the administration of our Colonies, as the noble Lord the Member for London had attempted to liken it. The Council, too, would have to deal with finance to the extent of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000—how the money was to be raised. Was a Secretary of State for India, to conduct such immense transactions? These were some of the occupations which must engage the Council here. Stores and transports also were to engage their attention. Why, all this formed a business for a Government of itself, and not for a Department. In these observations he did not mean to express any wish
  1984
  to resuscitate the East India Company, the machinery of which was the most anomalous that could be conceived, and led to perpetual confusion and complications. But then came the question as to the number of the Council. He had voted first for the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for South Durham, and subsequently for that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, under the opinion that they would do well to see how, having transferred the Government of India to the Crown, the united administration would work before they definitely settled the number of the Council. If, after a year's experience, the President of the Board of Control were to come down and tell them that a council of eight was sufficient, he should have his (Mr. Ellice's) vote for the eight; but his reason for now preferring a larger number was, that it was admitted by all, except the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), that the present machinery worked well; and, therefore, he could not see why it should be reduced to twelve until they had some experience that a larger number was too many. Again, the business of the India House was every day increasing, and probably they owed much of their present difficulties to the recent additions made to the Indian empire. They should, then, consider that it was not only the old but also the new domains of the East India Company that they had to govern with this new machinery, and which would require all the ability of their most able men. That was another reason why they should begin with a larger number. Again, as he did not look on the members of the Council as mere clerks, but as a House of Commons sitting upon the affairs of India, he could not expect them to be at all times present; and therefore if twelve are enough to do the work, there ought to be a few others, so that they might mutually take that amount of recreation which every gentleman required. His right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) said that a Council of twelve would be enough to do the work, but Sir James Melvill, who had fifty years' experience of the Government of India, had stated that they had gone as far as they could go in the way of reduction in the present machinery. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton told them that whatever machinery they were now to erect for the Government of India should be as dissimilar as possible to the present. That

  1985
  was not very grateful on his part, considering the services the Company had rendered to the country. Now, he thought that, without at all meddling in the administration of India, the Minister of India would have enough to do in laying down the principles upon which the Government was to be administered. First, there was the great question of religion, and to what extent and in what manner missions should be extended; next came the great question of education; their relations with the Native States, their diplomatic relations with other Indian Powers, and above all, the important question of the reformation of the army. These were subjects for the consideration of the Cabinet, and not for that of an administrative body. He should, therefore, advise the House to beware of all compromises on Indian subjects, and to take care that in abolishing the power of the East India Company they replaced it by such a system as would be a security not only to this country but to the Native population fur their future good government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope the Committee will now be prepared to vote on the Resolution before them, and to show that they are in earnest by carrying it. The point which they have to decide is as to the number of which they think, upon the whole, it is most desirable the Council should consist. In drawing the Resolution upon the table we were of opinion, from what had passed in former debates, that the general feeling of the Committee was, that they were not by this vote pledged to a specific and find number for the Council, but that there was a certain margin left by the Resolution. That is the reason why the Resolution appears in this shape. The consequence of the manner in which the Committee have proceeded upon this Resolution is, that there is some little deficiency in it. I am of opinion that this Resolution ought to have included a minimum, whatever the numbers of the Council might be. If, therefore, our Amendment is carried, that the Council shall consist of "not more than fifteen," I shall propose the addition of the words" and not less than twelve." Whereas, if the Amendment of the noble Lord is carried, that the Council shall consist of "not more than twelve," I shall move the addition of the words, "and not less than eight." I am aware that a vote upon a Resolution does nut bind the House when the Bill
  1986
  shall come before it, but still there is a general feeling that our future legislation will be guided and influenced by the opinion of the Committee upon the Resolutions. We are now asked, "What have this Council to do?" No one has asked this question oftener, and reiterated it more frequently than the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), and no one has more repeatedly replied to his own inquiry, or entered more diffusely into calculations of the labour that this Council will have to accomplish. Sir, what they will have to do is generally to perform those duties which are now performed by the Court of Directors. They will be a Council who will have to review our Indian administration, and who will virtually, if not theoretically, have to initiate measures, and to present the result of their researches and judgment before the Minister of State, who, it is reasonable to presume, will be guided in most instances by their labours and counsels. And although the Minister of State will sign the despatches and documents instead of the Court of Directors, the Council will he found an fictive, if not a formally responsible body in the administration of the affairs of India. It will be found a real Council, as I hope it will be found a prudent and prudential Council. I have no intention to cuter into the general subject Which has been opened somewhat unexpectedly to-night, and I will therefore address myself to the mere question before the House. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) quite unexpectedly entered into all the branches of the subject, but he was fully met by my noble Colleague the President of the Board of Control (Lord Stanley), and the discussion might very well have ended there. But one or two questions have been pointedly addressed to me by hon. Members, to which I wish for a moment to advert. I have been asked by the hon. Baronet the Member fur Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) in what position will the new Minister of India be in reference to the finances of India? My answer to that is, that whether the Minister of India be a President of the Board of Control, or a President of the Council, or a Secretary of State, as far as finance is concerned, he will exercise no other power than the President of the Beard of Control now exercises. Then I am asked by the hon. Baronet whether the Government mean to adhere to the elective principle. If he will look to the Resolutions, he will find that he will have an early opportunity of express-

  1987
  ing his opinion on that subject; and it appears to me that after what has passed, and considering that even the noble Lord the Member for London has at one time expressed an opinion favourable to the elective principle, we should be trifling with the House if we were to pass over that question. When the opportunity arises, my noble Friend the President of the Board of Control will state the views of the Government—what elements they think should form a constituency—and the House will have to decide whether they think, upon the whole, that those are means by which we may insure the independence of the Council, which is agreed on all sides to be so desirable. If we do not succeed in that proposition—if the House should be of opinion that the elective principle, so applied, is not calculated to produce that effect, then we shall endeavour to obtain the same result by other means; but, in my opinion, the proposition does offer means which are well adapted to accomplish the end in view. I trust that when the discussion comes on the House will completely consider the question, because nothing is more important in these discussions than that we should not lose sight of that invaluable quality in the Council—namely, independence. There was another question asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice) amid the terrible and fearful warnings which he dealt around him—namely, what the Government intended to do about the organization of the Indian army? I do not think that the measure to which these Resolutions are to lead has any necessary reference to the organization of the Indian army. The organization, or rather reorganization of the Indian army, is unquestionably a subject of State policy, second to none in importance that can occupy the consideration of Cabinets, and must be examined by other means than are provided by this Bill. When the results are arrived at, no doubt measures will be taken adequate to the occasion. A few nights ago I announced that it was our intention to ask for a Royal Commission (consisting of those who are most competent to inquire into so grave and vast a subject) to examine into the whole question of the reorganization of our Indian army, and when the result of their labours has been submitted to the Government, the Government will come to a conclusion which no doubt the new Indian Administration in England will be most useful in carrying into effect; but we cannot leave
  1988
  a subject of that magnitude to the mere domestic Government of England or India, and that and other questions of the like importance must be dealt with by other means, and provided for by different machinery. I do not think it necessary to advert to any other point. It appears to me that this question has been amply and satisfactorily discussed. I think it is now understood in all its bearings. Every objection has been urged, and every point has been well considered, and we are now ripe for a decision. I have indicated the course which I shall feel it my duty to take if the Amendment of the noble Lord is carried, or if, on the other hand, the proposition of the Government be successful. I trust that, whatever may be the decision, the vote we are coming to will be the fore-runner of a speedy settlement of those subjects of controversy which have so long engaged the attention of the Legislature.
  Question put, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 176; Noes 243: Majority 67.
  Question, "That the word 'fifteen' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "nor more than eighteen."
  Question, "That those words stand part of the proposed Resolution," put, and negatived.
  LORD STANLEYthen proposed the insertion of the words "and not less than twelve." As he had stated at an earlier period of the evening, the Government did not wish to be tied down to any specific number, but to allow a margin. There seemed a general feeling in the Committee that there ought to be a minimum, and that it should be twelve. He therefore proposed that that be the number.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he did not give up his opinion that these were merely preliminary proceedings, and would have to be gone over again on the Bill. He should, therefore, on the proper occasion again take the sense of the House on the question.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "Members" to add "and not less than twelve."
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  On the Question, that the Resolution, as amended, be agreed to,
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLproposed, to add at the end of the Resolution the words "and that the Members of the Council be appointed by the Crown."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it was generally understood that the object of proceeding by Resolution was that each point must be considered by itself. So grave a question as this ought not to be brought on at the tail of a Resolution. It would be better raised on the 6th Resolution.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had no objection to that course.
  MR. CUMMING BRUCEhad intended to propose that the Court of Directors be the first members of the Council; but after what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would postpone it. At the same time, he had such confidence in the noble Lord at the head of the Board of Control that he should not be indisposed to withdraw it altogether.
  MR. DUNLOPalso postponed an Amendment of which he had given notice, relative to the powers of the Council, until a future occasion.
  Original Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  3. Resolved—
  That in order to assist such Minister of the Crown in the discharge of his duties it is expedient that a Council be appointed of not more than fifteen Members and not less than twelve—
  LORD STANLEY,in proposing the fourth Resolution, said, that nothing was farther from the intention of the Government than to compose the Council exclusively of old Indians. They attached great importance to the mixture of the English with the Indian element; but, remembering that the special function of the Council was to supply that peculiar departmental knowledge of Indian affairs which Englishmen in ordinary cases could not be supposed to possess, he apprehended that no great objection would be taken to a Resolution which pointed to the selection of a principal part of the members from a class who, it was obvious, must in the main be the best acquainted with India. The terms of the Resolution left an ample margin for the appointment of others who were unconnected with the service in India.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That in order to secure the greatest amount of knowledge and experience in the management of the affairs of India it is advisable that the
  1990
  principal portion of the Members of the Council shall have served in India for a term of years to be limited by Statute."
  MR. GREGSON MR. GREGSON moved the insertion of the words "or resided" after the word "served" in the Resolution, so that persons who had lived in India in a merely civil capacity might be appointed members of the Council.
  Amendment proposed, after the word "served" to insert the words "or resided."
  LORD STANLEYhad no objection to that Amendment.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, before they passed the Resolution he should like to have a pledge that the persons to be appointed on the Council should have served ill the Indian Department. He had not confidence in all Governments that they would not appoint persons on the Council for party purposes.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  4. Resolved—
  That in order to secure the greatest amount of knowledge and experience in the management of the affairs of India it is advisable that the principal portion of the Members of the Council shall have served or resided in India for a term of years to be limited by Statute.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as the next Resolution was perhaps the most important of any, and as the Government was anxious that they should have the advantage of a continuous debate upon it, he would now move that the Chairman report progress. He had intended to propose that they should have a morning sitting on Monday; but as some hon. Gentlemen who wished to be present could not attend, he proposed that they should meet at the usual hour on Monday.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLgave notice, that in the next Resolution he should propose, after the word "that" to insert the words "the members of the Council be nominated by Her Majesty."
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYobserved, that the London Corporation Bill was fixed specially for Thursday morning.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that Bill was certainly fixed for Thursday morning, but it was important, since they had advanced so far with these Resolutions, that they should endeavour to proceed continuously with them, and for that reason they would not go on with the Corporation Bill on

  1991
  Thursday, but he would endeavour to fix another day for it.
  House resumed.
  Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.

  CHELSEA BRIGDE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—SECOND READING
  Order for Second Reading read.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS LORD JOHN MANNERS moved the second reading of the Chelsea Bridge Act Amendment Bill. He said the House would remember that in 1846 the Exchequer Loan Commissioners were authorized to advance certain sums for the erection of a bridge at Chelsea, and the laying out of a park at Battersea, and the embankment of the Thames at that spot. The Commissioners had advanced £120,000 for the latter object, and £80,000 for the bridge. The cost of the bridge and the interest up to the day of its being opened, was £97,000. Considerable dissatisfaction had been felt by the inhabitants of Chelsea at the imposition of a toll on all foot passengers over the bridge. The late Government proposed a Bill to abolish the tolls, and it was referred to a Select Committee, who reported against it. The present Bill was a compromise. He proposed that when the capital sum of £80,000, together with the interest at 4 per cent to the day at which the bridge was opened, amounting to £97,000, was paid off, the foot-toll should be abolished. The other tolls would then, he hoped, be sufficient to keep the bridge in repair. With regard to the other sum, he did not find that there was any engagement that it should be repaid, and he did not propose to make any provision with regard to it. Indeed it would be totally impossible that the tolls should repay both these sums. The interest on the £80,000 was £3,200 a year, and the total estimate of the tolls was only £6,000 a year, and therefore both charges could not be repaid out of the tolls. The House would naturally say, "What hope is there of ever paying off the £80,000?" So far as they had experience, there was reason to believe that could be done. The bridge had been open ten weeks, and the tolls had averaged £130 a week, though he did not suppose it would be so much in the winter months; and when they added to that the sum which the Commissioners calculated on receiving from the sale of certain portions of land which they were authorized to sell be thought, there was a reasonable prospect.
  1992
  that in a term of years the sum he had mentioned would be paid off.
  Motion made and question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he had not had the advantage of having heard one word that fell from the noble Lord, and he begged to say that very few communications that passed above the gangway were heard below it. As far as he had heard the proposition he objected to it as an attempt to break the bargain that had been made on the building of the bridge. He contended that the parties who had borrowed the money ought to pay it back. A Select Committee on the Bill brought in by the right hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) last year, reported that the toll should be continued on the bridge; but the proposition of the noble Lord was like putting in the small end of the wedge, the object being to break through the bargain that had been made. Then there had been another large sum advanced for which no provision was made. He thought every district ought to provide itself with bridges and pay for them. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR BENJAMIN HALLwas understood to say that his proposition was to take off the foot toll, which was calculated to produce £4,000 a year, and the noble Lord's proposition was to forego the interest, which was £3,200 or £4,000 a year.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSexplained that the Exchequer Loan Commissioners advanced £80,000 for the bridge, and charged 4 per cent interest, which up to the opening of the bridge raised the sum due to £97,000. In addition £120,000 was voted at four different times for the purpose of the embankment and the streets but he could not find there was any engagement to repay that sum.
  MR. ALCOCKdeprecated the proposition of the noble Lord because it gave no hope whatever of the bridge becoming free within any reasonable time, certainly not within 60 or 70 years. He did not think the House should vote one penny for any local object, and he did not think there

  1993
  was any necessity for doing so in this case, as he believed that the land which the Commissioners held, and which belonged to the nation, would, if sold, pay all that was borrowed for the bridge and the park. The total expenditure was about £350,000. Now he asserted, as a fact, that by the sale of land that sum might be made up. The late Commissioner sold some of the worst land for £3,000 an acre, and as there were about 100 acres, there could be no difficulty in making up such a sum as would enable the noble Lord to do away with these tolls. The Chief Commissioner was not justified in putting a toll on the people if he could sell this land. The noble Lord put as great a tax on the poor people who passed over this bridge as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did on the cheques of the rich. The noble Lord ought to tell the House that he would free this bridge, and make it the beginning of freeing the other bridges of London. That would tell as much in favour of the present Government as a triumph in foreign diplomacy. By keeping a toll on this bridge a monopoly was given to Lord Westminster, Lord Cadogan, and other proprietors on the Middlesex side, for no one would build grand mansions on the Surrey side with a toll on this bridge. The noble Lord acted as a dictator in this matter, but he (Mr. Alcock.) should not permit him to do so. He should move in Committee that the toll be abolished.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN,as a member of the Committee, reminded the House that the question really was, whether the general public were to pay for this great metropolitan improvement and convenience. He thought that there could be but one answer. The bridge should be paid for by those who used it, by means of the toll. Faith had not been kept with the public in this matter. Why should Chelsea Bridge be made free more than Waterloo Bridge?
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that this Bill could not be said to have been brought forward at the instigation of the metropolitan Members. He had done his best to have the foot tell taken off the bridge; and he believed that the 134 acres on the other side of the river would be improved so as to make up for the loss of the toll. This toll was not put on by the noble Lord, as his hon. Friend seemed to suppose—but by Act of Parliament; and although the Bill rather disappointed him in not going so far in the way of relief to the public as he could desire, yet it probably went farther
  1994
  than some of the noble Lord's friends wished. He could have wished that the toll should be immediately taken off; but it was a mistake to suppose that Battersea Park stood in the same position as the other parks. Battersea Park was intended not only as a place of recreation for the people, but to remove a great public nuisance. Having made the park, it was found advisable to build the bridge, because the majority of the people who would use the park lived on the north side of the river. The park was not now used by the working classes on Sunday, but by the higher classes. A large sum of money had been already spent on the park, and the question was whether, as practical men, they would allow the whole thing to be a failure and a bankruptcy without hope of repayment. He hoped to see the toll taken off, and he should support the second reading in the hope of going further in Committee.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, this was simply a question of contract with the Exchequer Loan Commissioners. They had advanced the money, and they were to receive 4 per cent. for it; but the Bill said that, after having capitalized the arrears of interest, and increasing the principal by that capitalization from £80,000 to nearly £100,000, from that day forward not one farthing interest was to be paid on that sum. Besides, he did not know what security there was for the Exchequer Loan Commissioners getting back that money.
  MR. JOHN LOCKEdenied that the question was a miserable one of pounds, shillings, and pence. The bridge and park had been established by public money for public purposes, and there was a stipulation that it should be repaid by the proceeds of the toll. The question was, whether the purpose was useful and ought to be carried out. He had been down there on a Sunday himself, and he had observed, that instead of crossing the bridge to the park, the working classes, their wives, and children, were compelled by the toll to remain on the esplanade by the banks of the river, which, as everybody knew, could not be conducive to their health. By taking off the toll, not simply on the foot passengers, but on horses and carriages, there was no doubt whatever that the value of the property on each side of the water would be greatly improved; and he thought that in consequence the Government were fully justified in not parting with the land at present, It ought to be the endeavour of

  1995
  this House to make London as handsome a city as Paris, or any other city on the Continent. This was the first bridge the Government had ever attempted to erect over the Thames for the accommodation of the public; and as a step in the right direction he should vote in support of the Bill.
  Mr. SPOONER Mr. SPOONER moved the adjournment of the debate.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhoped the House would come to a decision upon the question. The only fault he found with the Bill was that it postponed to an almost indefinite period the time when the working classes would have the enjoyment, not of the bridge, but of the park. It had been said that the question was one involving good faith with the public. Now if the money had been borrowed from some foreign country to which the faith of England had been pledged, there might be some force in the argument; but the debt had been incurred by ourselves, and we were free to remit the toll if we thought proper. The matter was one which affected the health and comfort of a great labouring population. On one side of the river there was a park which had been formed for the recreation and the benefit of the health of the people; on the other side were the people wandering about like shades on the banks of the Styx, unable probably to find the obolus to fee some Charon to ferry them over. They and their wives and children were tantalized with the sight of a park which they could not reach. He really hoped the good feeling of the House would lead them to free the bridge from the foot-toll at least. He disliked the Bill because it postponed the benefit so long; but he would take it if it was all the Government would grant. The carriage and horse tolls were preserved; and if the park proved as attractive as hon. Gentlemen believed, they would, no doubt, prove very productive. Even if they did not, and some sacrifice of public money was required, he hoped they would have a sympathy with the large working population, and free the bridge from the foot toll.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had objected to the construction of the bridge when it was first proposed, because he foresaw what had since happened, that the moment the bridge was built there would be an agitation to remove the toll. The noble Lord who pleaded so eloquently the cause of the working classes of the metropolis, forgot that the expense of it
  1996
  came out of the pockets of all the working classes of the kingdom. There was no reason why Middlesex and Surrey should not pay for their bridges as every other county did. Much was said about the value of the land, but then the Government was entitled to that on account of the money spent in the construction of the park as well as the bridge. He thought the Bill a poor one, opposed to public principle, and he would vote against it.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he was on the Committee last year, and felt obliged to vote against the Resolution to make the bridge toll free. He did not see any relief in this measure; it was a partial one, and only relieved from the interest. He thought it was a matter for a compromise. If the two counties would guarantee that the bridge should in future be maintained and repaired, let the Government generously take off the toll. Every other county paid for its bridges, and they ought to consider whether they should not make the two metropolitan counties throw open all the bridges over the Thames. He calculated it would only require a rate of one penny in the pound. This was particular legislation on a subject which ought to be dealt with as a whole.
  MR. AYRTONthought, that as a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the subject of metropolitan tolls, it would be better to defer further proceedings until the Commission had reported. It had been said that Chelsea Bridge was for the benefit of the poor; but be thought of all the bridges of the metropolis it least deserved that description. It was only a holiday affair, while there were other bridges which poor persons had to cross to get to their work, and for which they had to pay toll. He did not consider that the bridge was designed for the advantage of the poor man, but rather for the benefit of a few wealthy people whose property it improved.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Jackson) had raised a new point, which was well worthy of consideration. It would, therefore, be better at that late hour to agree to the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 139; Noes 51: Majority 88.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought they might come to some

  1997
  agreement among themselves that, after Twelve o'clock, when any order of the day was likely to lead to a discussion, it should not be proceeded with. That would, in his opinion, conduce to the general convenience.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.